Motor Accident Compensation: Jharkhand High Court Says It’s Right to Add 40% of Income for Future Earnings, Even If the Deceased Housewife Was Not Working.

The Jharkhand High Court increased the compensation for the death of a 33-year-old homemaker in a motor accident. The court stated that it was right to include 40% of potential income for future prospects when calculating compensation, even though she was not formally employed. The applicants challenged the decision made by the Claim Tribunal in Hazaribagh. Justice Subhash Chand noted that the Tribunal did not account for the future prospects of the deceased in its award.

The incident occurred in 2007 when the petitioner’s wife and family were traveling to Rajrappa. A bus collided with their Jeep, resulting in her death at the scene. An FIR was filed against the bus driver under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased operated a provision store and earned around Rs 10,000 monthly. The bus driver had issued a cheque for Rs 16,981, but it bounced, and the insurance policy was canceled. Since the vehicle lacked a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident, the insurance company was not responsible for compensation.

The Tribunal awarded Rs 6,09,000 to the claimants, directing the insurance company to pay this amount equally. Dissatisfied with this decision, the claimants appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal incorrectly assessed the deceased’s notional income at Rs 3,000 per month, while evidence showed her income from the grocery store was between Rs 10,000 and Rs 11,000 monthly. The Bench observed that the claimants did not provide any documents to support their claim that the deceased operated a provision store. There was no license from local authorities or invoices showing purchases from wholesalers for resale at the grocery shop.

Additionally, there was no record of employee salaries or any other relevant documents. The claimants also failed to present income tax registration, sales tax registration, or any local authority registration for the store. The oral evidence provided by the claimants did not sufficiently prove that the deceased ran the shop and earned between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,000 monthly. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly determined the deceased’s notional income to be Rs. 3,000 per month, which was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal noted that the deceased, a 33-year-old housewife, had her notional income set at Rs. 3,000 per month. The Bench pointed out that the Tribunal’s award did not account for any future earnings of the deceased.

The Bench stated that since the deceased was a 33-year-old housewife at the time of the accident, it would be reasonable to consider a 40% increase in income for future prospects when calculating compensation, even if she was not formally earning. Consequently, the Bench partially granted the Miscellaneous Appeal, raising the compensation amount 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