Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Deepak Kumar Das, S/o Kalicharan Das - Appellant
Vs.
Niraj Kumar, S/o Bidya Rai - Respondent
M.A. No. 155 of 2022
Decided On : 12-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate:Mr. Kumar Baibhav, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
The court established that minimum wages should be applied to assess the compensation for a housewife's death, including future prospects based on age.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - M.A. Claim Case No.32 of 2018 - The award of Rs.5,08,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum was challenged for being inadequate - The deceased, a housewife, was not properly assessed for income; minimum wages in Jharkhand should apply - The court cited Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. regarding minimum wage entitlement for housewives and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi for future prospects - The deceased's age was 30 at the time of the accident, justifying a 40% addition for future prospects. (Paras 3, 14, 15, 16)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - The appellate court must ensure that the lower court's decision is not afflicted by illegality or perverse conclusions. (Paras 4, 18)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Ranju Devi, was a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident caused by a truck driver’s negligence, resulting in her death after treatment for injuries sustained. (Paras 7, 10)
Findings of Court:
The award was modified to reflect proper assessment of income and future prospects, with the insurance company required to comply within eight weeks. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the appropriate income assessment for a housewife and the justification for including future prospects in the compensation calculation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the minimum wage applicable at the time of the accident should be used for assessing the income of a housewife and emphasized the importance of preserving the deceased's family's standard of living.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award of compensation passed in M.A. Claim Case No.32 of 2018 dated 30th May, 2022 by learned District Judge-V-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih whereby he has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- with interest of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim case.
3. Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the awarded amount as lesser amount has been awarded. He submits that the learned Court has not considered the income of the deceased, who was the housewife in its right perspective. He submits that in view of the case of Kirti and Another versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 the housewife is entitled at least for minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident in the State of Jharkhand. He further submits that on future prospect also the lesser amount has been awarded. On this ground, he submits that the said award may kindly be modified.
4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the prayer and submits that nothing has been proved before the learned Court about the income of the deceased and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the said award and there is no illegality in the award.
5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle, in question submits that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and in view of that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order to pay the compensation by the insurance company.
6. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, who is the driver, submits that in driving the vehicle there is no fault and the vehicle was being driven cautiously, however, the accident took place and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned award.
7. It transpires from the record that the case was instituted by the claimants alleging that on 23.11.2017 the deceased Ranju Devi was on the way to Dhanwar with her brother-in-law (Dewar) Rohit Kumar Das. Rohit Kumar Das was plying the motorcycle and deceased was the pillion rider. It has been alleged that at about 1:00 PM while they reached near Barjo Power House, PS – Dhanwar at that time the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. JH-09-AH-7626 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle from its behind in which Rohit Kumar Das had died on spot whereas his sister-in-law, Ranju Devi sustained grievous injuries and she was admitted in RIMS, Ranchi and during the treatment on 26.11.2017 she succumbed to the injuries and for that Dhanwar P.S. Case No.366 of 2017 was registered against the driver of the said truck and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted for the offence under Section 279, 304, 307, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the age of the deceased namely Ranju Devi was 30 years at the time of the accident.
8. The learned Court has considered the deposition of CW-1, who has stated that Ranju Devi was housewife and her husband was earning member of their family.
9. CW-3, who is the husband of the deceased, in his deposition stated that Ranju Devi was housewife and her lifetime, Ranju Devi was maintained by him.
10. With regard to the earning of the deceased, the witnesses in their examination-in-chief stated that the deceased was a Tailor and Embroidery Worker and her monthly income was Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the same was negated by the learned Tribunal on the ground that C.W. 1 and C.W. 3, who are the close relative and husband of the deceased during their cross-examination admitted that the deceased was housewife and the learned Court has assessed the income of the deceased Rs.3,000/-.
11. Fro
