The court upheld the calculation of the deceased's income based on minimum wages and affirmed the award for consortium and funeral expenses, referencing Supreme Court guidelines on conventional rates.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.60 of 2018 whereby the award has been made in favour of the appellants.

3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are the claimants and the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the claim. He submits that the income of the deceased was wrongly calculated by the learned Court and under the consortium head meagre amount has been allowed. He submits that there are four dependents and in view of that all are required to be provided Rs.40,000/- each. He further submits that in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shetty and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the consortium and funeral expenses are required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. He submits in view of that at least twice the said amount is required to be enhanced to the tune of 10% as accident took place in the year 2017 and the judgment has been delivered in the year 2023.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the learned Court has taken care of all the aspects and has rightly passed the award. He submits that the learned Court has rightly calculated the income of the deceased and has come to the figure to Rs.9,500/- as income. He submits in view of the of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shetty and Others (supra) the consortium is rightly calculated by the learned Court and according to him there is no illegality in the award.

5. From the judgment of the learned trial court, it transpires that the appellants herein instituted the compensation case stating that on 15.05.2017 the applicant No.1 was travelling with her husband Santosh Toppo from Ranchi to Sisai in their own car bearing Registration No. JH- 01-CC-0204. The car was being driven in a normal speed by her husband namely Santosh Toppo. It was further contended that when they reached near village – Dombu situated within the jurisdiction of Bharno PS, District – Gumla, all of a sudden a truck being Registration No. JH-05M- 3683 dashed against the car. The driver was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner. As a result of accident both the occupants of the car sustained grievous injuries upon their persons. The people of locality took the accident victim to Primary Health Centre, Bharno for treatment and after primary treatment they were referred to Alam Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi for better treatment but unfortunately the injured Santosh Toppo died on 16.05.2017 during the course of treatment. FIR was registered as Bharno P.S. Case No.24 of 2017 dated 19.05.2017 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC against driver of Truck bearing registration No. JH-05N-3683. Postmortem upon body of deceased was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi vide P.M. Report No.1078 of 2017 dated 16.05.17 and Charge-sheet has been submitted on 28.10.17. The deceased died leaving behind his widow son and parents as dependents/legal heirs and in that background, they have instituted the compensation case.

6. The learned Court has examined the contention of appellants herein with regard to the income of the deceased and has found that different contentions in the pleadings and testimony of the witnesses have been taken. In the pleading, it was claimed that he was a private teacher and imparting tuition to the students and it was further disclosed that he was agriculturist also and he was earning 25,000/- per month. A.W.-1, the father of the deceased affirmed the contention of the pleading. However, the widow of the deceased examined as A.W. 2 – Jag