1

M.A. 108 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No. 108 of 2010

(Against the award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned 1^st Additional

District Judge, Deoghar-cum- Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Deoghar in M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2003)

Churia Devi, wife of Kali Mahtha, resident of village- Punsia, Tola

– Nawadih, P.S- Mohanpur, P.O.- Malhara, Sub-division &

District- Deoghar

…... Claimant/ Appellant

Versus

1. New India Insurance Company, B. Deoghar, Kutchery Road B.

Deoghar, District- Deoghar

2. Sitaram Choudhary,son of Kuldeo Choudhary (Owner & Driver)

resident of village-Punsia, Tola – Nawadih, P.S.- Mohanpur, P.O.-

Malhara, Sub-division and District- Deohgar

….. Opposite Parties/ Respondents

For the Appellants

: Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Adv.

For the Respondents

: Mr. D.C. Ghose, Adv.

: Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv.

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:-

Heard the parties.

2.

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against

the judgment and award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned 1^st

Additional District Judge, -cum- Additional Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal, Deoghar in M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2003 whereby

and where under, the learned court below in a petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, awarded a sum of Rs.

50,000/- to the claimant after deducting the interim compensation,

if any paid to the claimant, and as the insurance company had

already paid the said amount, it was ordered that the insurance

company will not recover the said amount from the claimant and

2

M.A. 108 of 2010

will have liberty to recover the same from the owner of the

offending vehicle.

3. The brief facts of this case is that on 27.10.2001, when the

deceased was travelling in the offending tractor-trailer, he fell

down from the said tractor trailer and was ran over by it and he

died. The deceased was 15 years of age. Learned tribunal

considered the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/-

per annum and considered the age of the claimant to be 65 years,

applied the multiplier 5 and after deducting 1/3^rd of the income

towards the personal expenses of the deceased, granted a sum of

Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation.

4. Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant

relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Kurban Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Anr. vs. Shyam Kishore

Murmu and Anr. reported in 2022 (1)SCC 317, paragraph 16 of

which reads as under:

“16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notional income of the

deceased at Rs 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly,

when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier of 15, as prescribed

in Schedule II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it

comes to Rs 3,75,000 (Rs 25,000 × multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency. The

appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs 40,000 each towards filial consortium and

Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following

amounts towards compensation:

(a)

Loss of dependency

:

Rs

3,75,000-00

(b)

Filial consortium (Rs 40,000 × 2)

:

Rs

80,000-00

(c)

Funeral expenses

:

Rs

15,000-00

Total

:

Rs

4,70,000-00

and submits that learned tribunal ought to have taken the notional

income of the deceased to be Rs. 25,000/- per annum and the

multiplier to be 15 in view of the principle of law settled by the of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sube Singh and Anr.

vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 18,

para 4 and 5 of which reads as under:

“4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High

Court, it is evident that the