IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A No. 215 of 2014 ----- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Rathore Mansion, PO & PS Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Policy No. 331407/31/2012/3, Policy effective date 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, represented through its Sr. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ranchi, Division-I, Tiwary Enclave, Circular Road, PO & PS Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand … Appellant(s) Versus 1. Anita Poddar, w/o late Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Poddar 2. Rahul Poddar, s/o late Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Poddar 3. Kaushal Poddar,s/o late Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Poddar 4. Mohit Poddar, s/o late Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Poddar All are resident of Anugrah Nagar, PO Dhansar, PS Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 5. Smt. Bimla Devi, w/o Jitendra Kumar c/o Tarkeshwar Yadav, West Chandmari Road, Azad Path, Gali No.5 Kankarbag, PO & PS Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna 800020 (Bihar, at present Kailashpuri, near West Railway Gumti, Arrah, PO & PS Arrah, Dist. Bhojpur (owner of truck bearing registration No. BR01G-9216) … Opp. Party(s) CORAM : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ------ For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : None …...... 11 /29.01.2025: 1. Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court against the award of compensation of Rs.43,95,050/- interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application in Title Motor Vehicle Suit No. 146 of 2011 under Section 166 of the M. V. Act. 2. As per the case of the claimants Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Poddar died in motor vehicle accident on 23.06.2011 while he was travelling by Maruti Car which met with an accident with a truck bearing Registration No. BR- 01G-9216. Appellant is the insurer of the truck. 3. The Insurance, driving licence and road permit of the truck are not in dispute and the liability has been fixed on the insurer of the vehicle, therefore the notice on the owner of the truck respondent no.6 is being dispensed with. 4. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that it was a case of head on collision between truck and Maruti Car, but the liability is saddled only on the insurer of the truck. As it was a case of contributory negligence owner or the insurer of the Maruti car should have been also made liable. 2 5. It is further argued that the learned tribunal computed the income of the deceased only on the basis of Ext. 2 which is the Income Tax Return of the assessment year 2010-11 showing the income to Rs.3,71,000/-. Income Tax Return of the year 2009-10 (Ext.3) has also been filed showing an annual income of Rs.2,08,500/-, but that evidence of income has been discarded. The proper course should have been to draw an average income for taking the income tax return of both the years, as there was a skip rice in the income of the deceased for the assessment year 2010-11. 6. It is also argued that exhibit-4 which is a trade licence of retail cloths shop of the deceased did not show renewal after year 1998-2000. Lastly it is argued that while computing future prospect 30% increase in income for the age group of 47 years has been taken which is not as per the ratio laid down by Sarla Verma & Ors. Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (2) SCC(Cri) 1002. 7. Claimants have been impleaded in the appeal as respondent no.1 to 5, and notices were served on them but none had appeared in the appeal and, therefore, the hearing is proceeded ex-parte. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of Insurance Company and perusal of record of the case, it is evident that FIR (Ext.-5) was registered against the driver of the truck attributing the accident to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Police on investigation submitted charge-sheet against the driver which is adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.-6. P.W3 claims to be the direct eye witness to the incident and has also deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. No contrary evidence has been laid by the Insurance Company and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and that it was not a case of contributory negligence. 9. With regard to the income, I find the argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company to be ingenious that instead of taking the income of the deceased when he died at the time of accident, the income of the previous year should be considered. This will be against the settled principle of assessing the income of the deceased. So if the deceased is a government servant and there is an enhancement of salary then the income of the current year cannot be considered as per the argument advanced. Therefore, this argument is also 3 does not find any support and is accordingly rejected. There is no infirmity in taking Rs.3,71,000/- as the income of the deceased in computing the compensation at the time of accident. 10. There is merit in the argument advanced on behalf of Insurance Company that as far as future prospect is concerned instead of taking 30% increase as per settled law considering the age of 47 years of the deceased who was self- employed and was in trading business 25% increased should have been taken as future prospect. The final compensation amount on taking Rs.3,71,000/- as the annual income and after deducting the tax pay Rs.3.46,000/- per annum. Taking all this, the final compensation will work out as under:- Annual Income after deducting Income Tax Rs.3,46,000/- Future Prospect Rs.3,46,000/- X 25% Rs.76,5,00/- After adding annual income and future prospect Rs.3,46,000/- + Rs.76,500/- =Rs. 4,22,500/- Deduction (1/4th as total nos. of dependants are 4) Rs.1,05,625/- After deduction Rs. 4,22,500/- - Rs.1,05,625/- = = Rs.3,16,875/- Multiplier of 13 taking the age of the deceased to be 47 Rs. 41,19,375/- Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 41,19,375/- + Rs.70,000/ =Rs.41,89,375/- Miscellaneous appeal is disposed of accordingly. The Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs 41,89,375 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be 4 disbursed to the respective claimants on proper identification as per the terms of disbursement decided by tribunal. The statutory amount, which was deposited before this Court at the time of filing of this appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants, which will be adjusted against the compensation amount. (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Anjali/-