RANCHI, India, Nov. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:

1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation passed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 in Compensation Case No.16/2011 whereby and whereunder a compensation of Rs.14,24,053/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants for the death of Dablu Kumar Ray, who died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing registration no.JH-11D-5532 which was under the insurance cover of appellant/Insurance Company.

2. Essential facts are not in dispute that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident while he was driving by his motorcycle bearing registration No. JH 11G 0134 which met with an accident with the said truck.

3. The appeal has been preferred mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was a case of contributory negligence, but the insurer of the truck has been wholly saddled with the liability to pay the compensation amount. Secondly, with regard to quantum of compensation, it is argued that the learned Tribunal fell in error while assessing the income of the deceased which has been assessed to be Rs.83,209/-.

4. As per Exhibit 2 and 2/1, the deceased was a partner in a partnership firm which had gross profit of Rs.2,54,215/- for the year ending on 31.03.2010. Learned Tribunal after taking the gross profit, divided the sum between two partners and further added Rs.39,253.50 which was shown as remuneration and further added Rs.5,126.50 as share of profit. The main contention is that the tax has not been deducted and as per the quantum of compensation worked out by the Chartered Accountant which has been annexed with the memo of appeal, the net divisible profit was Rs.10,253/- and the 50% share of the deceased comes to Rs.5126.50. If the remuneration was added to it, the final annual income worked out to be Rs.44,380.00 and not as assessed by the Tribunal.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants that the report as annexed along with the memo of appeal, is in the nature of additional evidence and cannot be looked into as it was not brought on record before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the loss of income under the head of future prospect and that under conventional head, is not as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, and on considering the materials on record, it is evident from the statement of account enclosed with the audit report (Ext-2&2/1) adduced on behalf of the claimants that the net profit for the financial year ending on 31st March 2010 was Rs 93,346/- transferred to the partners, on a turnover of Rs 59,31,297/-. The net profit is not with respect to both the partners and not of the deceased alone. It has been rightly pointed out on behalf of the Insurance Company that tax has not been deducted on this amount which will be Rs 4586/- which will work out the profit to Rs 88,760/-. Deceased will therefore be entitled to annual profit/income of Rs 39,253.50/- plus the divisible profit of Rs 10,253 which works out to Rs 5,126.50 for each of the partner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9dkG%2B7PsJbYy0f9v6l4TDY%2FB%2BbKFmR0GN%2BZhyotb35SP&caseno=MA/243/2014&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010296602014&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.