Allowed

Smt. Pankhi and Others v. Ghanshyam Saini and Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2018FAFO/45/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the court modified the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim case. The court recalculated the deceased's income and applied a higher multiplier, increasing the award and directing respondents to deposit the difference with interest.

What did the court decide?

Order No. 45 of 1997 modified; compensation increased; additional amount to be deposited by respondents within 12 weeks with interest.

Smt. Pankhi and Others Vs Ghanshyam Saini and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 45 of 1997 Appellant :- Smt. Pankhi And Others Respondent :- Ghanshyam Saini And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- M.S. Haq

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by appellant who was the original claimants and they were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation for the death of the sole breadwinner, being aggrieved by order dated 23.7.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Firozabad in MACT No.183/93.

¶5

2. Brief facts of the present case are that deceased Lala Ram was driving Truck No. RNA-41 carefully and with controlled speed and another driver of Truck No. B.R. 06 H/8079 who was driving his truck rashly and negligently collided with the truck of deceased and on account of that deceased driver Lala Ram received fatal injuries and died at the spot. In the present case Oriental Insurance Company has filed W.S. and has denied the allegations contained in the appeal. Insurance Company has disputed the monthly earning of the deceased driver and submitted that it is wrong that deceased driver was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as salary. It is submitted that the amount arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. It has also been submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. B.R. 06 H/8079 which is not insured with Oriental Insurance Company and as such insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. Respondent no. 4 Manoj Kumar son of Dhirash has

¶6

also filed written statement in which the facts contained in the application were denied. Respondent - owner also denied the facts contained in application he admitted that he is the owner of Truck No. B.R. 064/8079.

¶7

Recently the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(0) Supreme (SC) 1050 has decided the issue of how quantum should be calculated for claim arising out of motor accident causing accident.

¶8

The income of the deceased in the year 1993 has to be considered as Rs.2,000/- which is pleaded by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for appellant. It is further pleaded that the Tribunal wrongly considered the income to be Rs.12,000/- per annum and granted multiplier of 10. No other amount under any other head was granted.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for respondent that the income has rightly been considered by Tribunal as his job was of casual nature. The deceased was aged about 27 years of age. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company is not at any fault and, therefore, no interest should be granted even if the Court feels that the compensation granted, is inadequate.

¶10

In fact he was a driver and not milk seller. The Tribunal has considered Rs.12,000/- per annum to be the amount admissible to the family thereby Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded ( multiplier of 10). The multiplier would be of 17. In this case, accident occurred in the year 16.7.1993 being a driver his income would have been Rs.2,000/- per month atleast which comes to Rs.24,000/- per year out of which 1/3rd will have to be deducted which would mean that the family would be entitled to Rs.16,000/- per annum multiplied by 17 , hence 16,000 x 17 would be Rs.2,72,000/- to which Rs.35,000/-

¶11

would be added as future income in those years lumpsum, hence the family would be entitled to Rs. 3,42,000/- as Rs.35,000/- under the head of non pecuniary amount is also added. The amount already awarded and deposited be deducted from the total amount to be paid.

¶12

The award requires modification and the amount after the filing of claim petition till award will carry 9% interest on additional amount and 6% thereafter.

¶13

Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Record if in this Court, be sent forthwith to the Tribunal. The amount be deposited by the respondents within 12 weeks from today.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.1.2018 Mukesh

Smt. Pankhi and Others v. Ghanshyam Saini and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pankhi and Others v. Ghanshyam Saini and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawana @ Gudia and Another Vs Sri Hari Om

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kishan and 4 Ors.

Hari Om and Others Vs Hari Narain and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Varanasi Vs Amarjeet Singh and Another

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Munna Lal and Others

Mr. H.P.H.D.M. Vs M/S Phool Chand Shanker Kumar