Tukeshwari Devi vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd & Ors

Introduction:

Date of Judgement: 25/08/2021

Case No: M.A. No. 118 of 2016

Case Type: Miscellaneous Appeal

Appellant: Tukeshwari Devi

Respondent: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited

Appearances:

• For the Appellants: Mr Arvind Kumar Lall
• For the Respondents: Mr Ashutosh Anand and Mr Satish Kumar

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ananda Sen

Court: High Court of Jharkhand (Through Video Call)

Statutes Referred

• Section 304 A in The Indian Penal Code
• Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code

Cases Referred

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
• Rajendra Singh & Others Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Others (2020) 7 SCC 256.
• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Satender reported in (2006) 13 SCC 60.
• R.K. Malik Vs Kiran Pal reported in (2009) 14 SCC 1.

Procedural History

• The deceased Shashi Kumar Mahato was killed in an accident by an unnamed Omni van which was driven by the negligent driving of Lakshman Nayak.
• The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,75,000 / – in compensation and interest of 8% per annum, while the High Court granted Rs.2,95,000 / – to the deceased within 30 days.
• The Tribunal also stated that the deceased was the only son of his parents and the irreparable loss was caused to the parents by the death of their only son.
• The Tribunal held that the complainants were entitled to a sum of Rs.3,50,000 / – as compensation and Rs. 15,000 / – to love and affection and Rs. 10,000 / – for funeral expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the total compensation to be paid to applicants as Rs.3,75,000 / -.
• After considering the case of Satender (supra) and R.K. Malik (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajender Singh (supra), had concluded that a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- is the appropriate compensation.

Facts

• The case begins from a car accident, which took place on 14.01.2011 when the deceased Shashi Kumar Mahato was hit by an unmarked ‘Maruti-Omni’ of Lakshman Nayak, after which he was taken to the hospital but the deceased died.
• The deceased was 13 years old according to the case registered by Kasmar Police Station for offences under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
• The deceased had a bright future that’s why the court follow the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and allowed the appellant the compensation of Rs. 10000 for the funeral and Rs. 15000 for the “loss of love and affection.”
• The driver was driving negligently and roughly.
• The tribunal asked the insurance company to pay the compensation within 30 days.
• The Court took forward the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender, (2006) 13 SCC 60 in which it observed that,

“12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death for the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on an estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on an estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.”^[1]

Issue Involved

• Whether the claim application is maintainable in its present form?
• Whether the claimants get a valid cause of action for the present case?
• Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation amount claimed by them and to what extent they are entitled to get the same?
• Whether the claimants are entitled to get the compensation as claimed?

Contention of Appellant

• According to the claimants, they were entitled to compensation of Rs.3,50,000 / – plus interest.
• A counsel from the plaintiff states that the deceased was 13 years old and had a bright future.
• It further states that applicants are entitled to 12% interest from the date of application until the event.
• Dependent on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh & Others v. National Insurance Company Limited & Others reported (2020) 7 SCC 256.

Contention of Respondent

Opponents No.2 and 3 had never appeared before the Tribunal and the lawsuit was settled out of court.

Judgement

• The Jharkhand High Court after considering the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court is of the opinion that the amount granted by the Tribunal is fair and just compensation.
• In instances of children at a youthful age, taking into account vulnerabilities proliferate, neither their pay at the hour of death for the possibilities of things to come expansion in their pay nor chances of progression of their vocation are fit for legitimate assurance on assessed premise. The explanation is that at an early age, the vulnerabilities as to their scholastic interests, accomplishments in vocation and from there on progression in life are so many that nothing can be accepted with sensible assurance. Accordingly, neither the pay of the perished kid is equipped for evaluation on assessed premise nor the monetary misfortune endured by the guardians is fit for numerical calculation.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the instance of R.K. Malik versus Kiran Pal revealed in (2009) 14 SCC 1 has not thought about the situation of Satender (supra) on the ground of future possibility. In the wake of thinking about the instance of Satender (supra) and R.K. Malik (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on account of Rajender Singh (supra), had come to the result that an amount of Rs.2,95,000/ – is the suitable remuneration.
• The court relied on the judgement of Rajendra Singh & Others Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Others (2020) 7 SCC 256 in which the deceased was of 12 years. Thus, the tribunal guaranteed Rs.3,75,000 with an interest rate of 8 percent.
• The court passed the following decision, “Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I feel that there is no need of any interference with the impugned award dated 26.03.2015 passed by the District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No.51 of 2011.”
• The Miscellaneous appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Hon’ble Justice after observing every fact observed that there is no need for any interference with the impugned award dated 26.03.2015 passed by the District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No.51 of 2011.

---

[1] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender, (2006) 13 SCC 60.