Allowed

Ram Ashrey and Others v. M/S Amit Deep Motors and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2018FAFO/1786/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a motor accident compensation award. The court allowed the enhancement of compensation by recalculating loss of income with a corrected multiplier and deduction percentage, ordering the respondent to deposit the additional amount plus interest within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 22.5.2002 was modified to award a total sum of Rs. 2,41,000 to the appellants with interest; the additional amount is to be deposited within 12 weeks.

Ram Ashrey and Others Vs M/S Amit Deep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.1786 of 2002

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Ashrey And Others Respondent :- M/S Amit Deep Motors And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ania Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Office has wrongly mentioned the name of Anita Srivastava as Ania Srivastava for respondent no.2.

¶6

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement challenging the judgment and award dated 22.6.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, in M.A.C.P. No.286 of 1090. The accident is not in dispute. The deceased was not a tortfessor is also an admitted fact. For a period of about 16 years after the notice came to be issued, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has not felt it necessary to appoint any counsel for itself. Hence, I am constrained to pass ex parte order in the absence of counsel for Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

¶7

It is contended by Sri Ram Singh that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month as he was a mason and according to learned Advocate for the appellant in the year 1990, a mason would easily earn Rs.50/- per day. It is submitted that deduction of 1/3^rd is also bad in eyes of law as he was survived by 4 persons and, therefore, the deduction should have been only ¼^th and not more.

¶8

It is further submitted that multiplier applied by the Tribunal of 12 is bad in the eye of law as it should be 15 as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , as the deceased was 38 years of age and the compensation under the non-pecuniary damages is also on

¶9

¶10

the lower side. In the body of memo of appeal, he has cited several authoritative pronouncement but none are cited today.

¶11

May that as it may be, by going through the para meters fixed as per the principles set out in Prayay Sethi's case, I am persuaded to decide this appeal. Firstly, holding that income considered by Tribunal is based on available evidence before it and, therefore, the same cannot be disturbed. Hence, I hold that in the year 1990, the deceased would have earned Rs.1,200/- per month only. However, as he is survived by 3 daughters and widow, 1/4^th will have to be deducted hence instead of Rs.800/-, it should read as Rs.900/- and the multiplier to be applied would be 15 which means Rs.900x12x15=Rs.1,62,000/would be loss of income to the family. To that as he was 38 years of age and self employed person 25% towards future income in the year 1990 would be just and proper hence Rs.300x12x15=Rs.54,000/- would be the future loss of income. To that, an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- under the non-pecuniary heads would be admissible as it is an accident of the year 1990. The judgment of High Court would permit me to uphold the rate of interest which is 9%. Hence the heirs would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,41,000/-. Hence, the difference of amount shall be paid with 9% rate of interest from the date of claim petition till its decision of Tribunal and 4% thereafter as from 2002 till 2017 the matter remained pending here for no fault of the Insurance company.

¶12

The appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 22.5.2002 shall stand modified accordingly.

¶13

The additional amount be deposited within 12 weeks from today.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.1.2018 Irshad

Ram Ashrey and Others v. M/S Amit Deep Motors and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ashrey and Others v. M/S Amit Deep Motors and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Admn. Officer Vs Khem Karan and Others

M/S Hari Om Iron Foundry Vs Union of India

Nagar Mahapalika through Administrator Vs Satyaveer Singh

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Meera Kumari and Others

Chhabi Lal and Others Vs Deshpat

Superintendent Railway Mail Service Vs the Workmen Compensation and Others