IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2010

1. Sulochana Devi

2. Priyanka Kumari

3. Rajeev Kumar

4. Rakhi Kumari

5. Harendra Kumar @ Bittu Kumar

....

…. Appellant

Versus

Binod Kumar Sahu

....

.... Respondents

With

Cross Objection No. 03 of 2014

Binod Kumar Sahu

....

…. Appellant

Versus

2. Sulochana Devi

3. Priyanka Kumari

4. Rajeev Kumar

5. Rakhi Kumari

6. Harendra Kumar @ Bittu Kumar

....

.... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Srijit Choudhary, P.P. Chatterjee,

Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate (C.O. No.03/14)

: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate (M.A.No. 20/10)

For the Respondents

: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate (C.O. No.03/14)

Mr. Srijit Choudhary, P.P. Chatterjee,

Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate (M.A.No. 20/10)

C.A.V. ON 23.11.2021

PRONOUNCED ON 02 / 12 / 2021

1)

The instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the

claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in Motor Vehicle

Accident Case No. 77/2008 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988. Compensation has been awarded against the owner of the vehicle

who was impleaded as the sole defendant/respondent as he did not appear

and consequently an ex-parte proceeding was drawn against him.

2)

The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the

income of the deceased has been calculated to be only Rs.2000/- on the

reasoning that the widow of the deceased was still running the general

store of the deceased where from she was having an income of Rs.4000/-.

The income of the deceased was claimed to be Rs.6000/- and, therefore,

after his death Rs.2000/- loss of monthly income was accepted by the

Tribunal. As per the age of the deceased multiplier of 15 should be

applicable for determination of the quantum of compensation. The future

prospect has also not been factored in calculating the final compensation

2

amount and the interest has been not awarded as per the ratio decided in

Pranay Sethi case.

3)

As per the case of the plaintiff, the deceased was running a

general store near his residence with a monthly income of Rs.6000/- and

his widow Claimant No.1 deposed before the court that at present she was

running the shop from which she had a monthly income of Rs.4000/-.

Under the circumstance, accepting Rs.2000/- per month as the loss of

income on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle

accident cannot be questioned. In this view of matter, the family suffered a

loss in income of Rs.2000/- per month on account of death of Krityanand

Prasad. It would be not be just and fair to further deduct any amount as the

personal living expense of the deceased as his total monthly income is not

being reckoned with in computation of compensation ,but the financial

loss that resulted on account of his death. Principle of deduction of

personal living expense from the total income is to calculate the sum that

the deceased spent from his income on the dependent family. Here in view

of the evidence that even after the death the grocery shop was being run

albeit on a reduced income, therefore only the loss of income that resulted

on account of the death is being factored.

Taking Rs.2000/- as the loss of dependency and a multiplier of

14 applicable to his age of 45 as per the ratio decided in Sarla Verma

case the compensation amount will work out to Rs.2000 x

14=Rs.2,80,000/-.

Considering the age of the deceased and the nature of his

occupation, 25% enhancement of income under the head of future

prospect shall be applicable in view of the ratio decided in Pranay Sethi

case which will work out to Rs.70,000/-.

The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the

conventional head for loss of estate, consortium and funeral expe