Binita Bartiyar and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sinha and anr.

Binita Bartiyar and ors. vs Anil Kumar Sinha and anr.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 29, 2004

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/522304

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/522304
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal and; Vishnudeo Narayan, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 29, 2004
Case Number: AFOO No. 3 of 2002
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Binita Bartiyar and ors.

Advocate G. Mustafa, Adv.

Respondent

Anil Kumar Sinha and anr.

Advocate Alok Lal, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2006ACJ1236; [2005(1)JCR517(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - the appellants being not satisfied with the said award preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. the tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the amount which the deceased used to get deducted from his salary towards provident fund etc. was his personal savings for the purpose of future need of the family members like education and marriage. 89,440/-.6. it is well settled that the multiplier represents the number of year's purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. it is equally well settled that he compensation amount should be such amount which if invested in long terms deposit it may take care of the dependency perpetually. although the tribunal has taken notice of this proposition and held that if the amount is kept in long term deposit the interest payable would be 9% but has failed to appreciate the fact that the interest payable by the bank in long term deposit has reduced to 4% to 5%. the amount awarded by the tribunal therefore, if deposited in long term deposit will not take care of the dependency of the claimants perpetually......of year's purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. it is equally well settled that he compensation amount should be such amount which if invested in long terms deposit it may take care of the dependency perpetually. although the tribunal has taken notice of this proposition and held that if the amount is kept in long term deposit the interest payable would be 9% but has failed to appreciate the fact that the interest payable by the bank in long term deposit has reduced to 4% to 5%. the amount awarded by the tribunal therefore, if deposited in long term deposit will not take care of the dependency of the claimants perpetually.7. be that as it may. we are of the view that if the annual dependency of rs. 89,440/- is capitalized by 12 year's of purchase the minimum compensation amount comes to rs. 10,73,280/-. as noticed above after deducting one third of the gross salary of rs. 11,180/- the monthly dependency comes to rs. 7,454/- we are therefore, of the view that if a sum of rs. 10,73,000/- is deposited in long term deposit it will atleast take care of the dependency of the claimants, besides the above admittedly the deceased was a young man of 40 years and was holding the post of senior inspector in steel authority of india limited and he had a future career and prospect. taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that a compensation of rs. 10,73,000/-will be a reasonable compensation. the tribunal has not taken the right approach in assessing compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased.8. we therefore, allow this appeal and enhance the amount of compensation to rs. 10,73,000/-. this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the tribunal.9. in the facts of the case there shall be no order as to cost.

Full Judgment

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. The appellants are the widow and children of Late Pramod Kumar Bartiyar who died in an unfortunate Motor accident which took place on 18.10.1999 by Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR 14-B-6908 at Charhi Road, Hazaribagh. The deceased was aged 40 years and was posted as Senior Inspector in Steel Authority of India Limited and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 11,189/- p.m. The claimants-appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 70 lakhs.

2. The claims Tribunal took into consecration the net monthly salary i.e. Rs. 8,860/- which the deceased used to bring home after getting certain deduction, and calculated the annual Salary at Rs. 1,06,320/- and capitalized it on 12 year's purchase which come to Rs. 12,75,840/-. After deducting one third from the total amount the tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 8,50,560/- and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. The Tribunal further held that if this amount of compensation (Rs. 8,50,560/-) is kept in long term fixed deposit for which the bank interest is 9% p.a., it will fetch Rs. 6,000/- per month which is the actual loss to the claimants. The appellants being not satisfied with the said award preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

3. On 2.7.2003 this appeal was put up for hearing and in course of argument we tried to get the claim settled at Rs. 10 lakhs but the Insurance Company did not agree to settle the claim. However at the request of Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company we referred the matter to the Lok Adalat but before the Lok Adalat the claim could not be settled. Hence this appeal has been listed for hearing and disposal on merit.

4. Mr. G. Mustafa learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal gravely erred in taking the net home salary of the deceased instead of the gross salary which was admittedly Rs. 11,180/- for the purpose of assessing the compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has further committed illegality in taking only 12 years's of purchase for calculating the compensation. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel.

5. Admittedly the monthly gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 11,180/- which is evident from Exhibit 10 which is the pay slip issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited, Central Coal Organization. After certain deduction towards the provident fund etc. The deceased was bringing net salary of Rs. 8,861 every month. The Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the amount which the deceased used to get deducted from his salary towards provident fund etc. was his personal savings for the purpose of future need of the family members like education and marriage. Whatever deduction made was being saved in the account of the deceased. Because of death the claimants have been deprived of those amounts also which the deceased used to save for them. In our considered opinion therefore, it is the gross salary and not the home take salary which shall be taken for the purpose of calculation of the monthly loss to the appellants. If this amount of Rs. 11,180/- being the salary of the deceased is taken into consideration the annual salary which the deceased used to get comes to Rs. 1,34,160/-. If one third of the aforesaid amount is deducted towards the expenses of the deceased the annual monthly dependency comes to Rs. 89,440/-.

6. It is well settled that the multiplier represents the number of year's purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. It is equally well settled that he compensation amount should be such amount which if invested in long terms deposit it may take care of the dependency perpetually. Although the Tribunal has taken notice of this proposition and held that if the amount is kept in long term deposit the interest payable would be 9% but has failed to appreciate the fact that the interest payable by the bank in long term deposit has reduced to 4% to 5%. The amount awarded by the Tribunal therefore, if deposited in long term deposit will not take care of the dependency of the claimants perpetually.

7. Be that as it may. We are of the view that if the annual dependency of Rs. 89,440/- is capitalized by 12 year's of purchase the minimum compensation amount comes to Rs. 10,73,280/-. As noticed above after deducting one third of the gross salary of Rs. 11,180/- the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 7,454/- We are therefore, of the view that if a sum of Rs. 10,73,000/- is deposited in long term deposit it will atleast take care of the dependency of the claimants, besides the above admittedly the deceased was a young man of 40 years and was holding the post of Senior Inspector in Steel Authority of India Limited and he had a future career and prospect. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that a compensation of Rs. 10,73,000/-will be a reasonable compensation. The Tribunal has not taken the right approach in assessing compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased.

8. We therefore, allow this appeal and enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 10,73,000/-. This amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the tribunal.

9. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to cost.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Binita Bartiyar and ors. vs Anil Kumar Sinha and anr. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal and; Vishnudeo Narayan, JJ.

Motor Vehicles