Motor Accident Compensation| Appropriate To Add 40% Of Income As Future Prospect Even If Deceased Housewife Was Not Earning: Jharkhand HC

The applicants, before the High Court, challenged the award in a Motor Accident Claim Case passed by the Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subhash Chand noted, “From the impugned award it is evident that the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing for the future prospect of the deceased.”

Advocate T. S. Rezvi represented the Appellants while Advocate Tapeshwar Nath Mishra represented the Respondents.

The incident in question is of the year 2007, when the wife of petitioner no.1 alongwith other family members were going to Rajrappa and on the way a bus hit the Jeep as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and an FIR under section 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Ramgarh Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was running a provision store and was earning Rs 10,000 per month.

The driver of the offending bus had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs 16,981 but the same returned unpaid and the insurance policy got automatically cancelled. As per the condition of the said policy since the offending vehicle had no valid policy at the relevant date of accident as such the respondent no.2 insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.

The Tribunal passed the impugned judgment of the award for the amount of Rs.6,09,000 in favour of the claimants. The respondent- Insurance Company was directed to disburse the said amount in their favour in equal proportions. Aggrieved from the impugned award, the claimants filed appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compensation amount on ground that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed the notional income of deceased as Rs 3,000 per month while from the evidence on record the income from the grocery shop was proved to be Rs 10,000 to Rs 11,000 per month.

The Bench noted that no documentary evidence had been adduced on behalf of the claimants in regard to running the provision store by the deceased. No licence issued by any local authority or invoice had been adduced on behalf of the claimants in regard to purchasing the goods from the wholesalers for the purpose of resale of them on retail price at the grocery shop.

Moreover, no register of the salary of the employees or any other documentary evidence had been adduced. No income tax registration, sale tax registration or registration of any local authority for the very provisional store was presented by the claimants.

“As such from the very oral evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants the evidence in regard to running shop and earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.11,000/- per month by the deceased is not found proved. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly chosen to assess the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month and the same bears no infirmity”, the Bench held.

The Tribunal held that the 33-yr-old deceased was a household lady as such notional income was assessed Rs.3,000 per month. The Bench noticed that from the impugned award it was evident that the Tribunal awarded nothing for the future prospect of the deceased.

“Therefore, the deceased who was 33 years old on the date of accident was a household lady. Taking into consideration her services to be provided to the family members even if for the sake of argument, she was not earning it would be appropriate to add the 40% of income as future prospect while assessing the amount of compensation”, the Bench said.

Thus, partly allowing the Miscellaneous Appeal, the Bench enhanced the quantum of compensation from Rs 3,84,000 to Rs. 5,69,600.

Cause Title: Tapeshwar Prasad v. Akashyabat Ray [Case No.- M.A. No.203 of 2016]

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates T. S. Rezvi & Saurav Anand

Respondents: Advocate Tapeshwar Nath Mishra

Click here to read/ download Order