Allowed

Gangu Ram v. Rishi Pal and Another

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2018FAFO/877/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellant, suffering 75% disability due to amputation, sought increased compensation for income loss, pain and suffering, and medical expenses. This Court allowed the appeal in part, directing a higher compensation award and allowing interest at reduced rates.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation calculated and deposited within twelve weeks; interest adjusted to 9% till judgment and 4% thereafter; matter remanded to lower court.

Gangu Ram Vs Rishi Pal and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 877 of 2000

¶4

Appellant :- Gangu Ram Respondent :- Rishi Pal & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Murari,M.P. Sarraf,Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhawesh Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhawesh Rai, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

By way of this appeal, the original claimant has felt aggrieved as M.A.C.T./4th A.D.J. Aligarh granted a sum of Rs. 1,93,000/- with 10% rate of interest from 6.8.1996 till the amount was deposited and if the amount was not deposited within 60 days then rate of interest will be 15%, this has aggrieved the appellant who is claimant.

¶8

It is a admitted matter of fact that there was amputation of right leg of the appellant which is a matter of fact and which brought about 75% disability of body as a whole.

¶9

It is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and the Tribunal committed illegality in taking his income at Rs. 15,000/- per year. The petitioner will not be able to do any work as there is an amputation of limb. He is the only son of his father and uncle also does not have any child and the appellant was about 23 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has awarded a very little amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards Medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for pain shock suffering.

¶10

The factum of insurance and involvement of the vehicle are not in dispute. The only dispute is regarding the compensation awarded interest or compensation granted, decided in issue no. 4.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Smt. Bindu Devi and others Vs Naraini Devi an others [2017 (120) ALR 569], Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Vs Satish Kumar and others [2017 (1) AICC 812), Vinay Kumar Agarwal and another VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2010 (3) AWC 2908 (LB), Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another

¶12

1976 A.C.J. 141, Syed Sadiq, etc Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. 2017 (1) T.C.A. 369 (S.C.), and in Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another [2008 AICC 915] and has contended that under the head of pain and suffering for amputation at least Rs. 1,50,000/- requires to be granted.

¶13

While going through structured formula and the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Vs Satish Kumar and others [2017 (1) AICC 812). The year of accident namely 17.2.1996 the appellant was admitted in a hospital for 4 months and therefore towards medical expenses also he would be entitled to more amount, then what has been granted.

¶14

The Tribunal has been conservative in granting multiplier of 13 whereas for a young boy of 23 years multiplier of 18 has to be applied as per in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Another 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi (2017).

¶15

The income cannot be said to only to be Rs. 1,250/- per month even in the year 1996 for abled bodied person. The income even in the year 1996 when the abled bodied person would be entitled Rs. 3,000/- as per the judgments relied herein above by the learned Advocate for the appellant and therefore, loss of income would be Rs. 1,800/- per month which has to be multiplied by 18 as which would be Rs. 3,88,800/-.

¶16

As far as the amputation is concerned for loss of amenities for pain of suffering. He would be entitled a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He would be entitled Rs. 30,000/- in stead of what has been awarded for special diet and for attaining charges of lump sum Rs. 10,000/- requires to be added. Therefore, the amount which works out Rs. 3,88,800+ 1,50,000+30,000+10,000= Rs.5,78,800/-. The differences of compensation be paid and deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. As far as the interest is concerned it will have to readjusted and default interest would not have been awarded by the Tribunal. The interest would be 9 per cent vide rate of interest from the date of application till the judgment and 4 per cent thereafter as it could not be held that the respondent Insurance Company was instrumental in saying the appeal remains pending. The amount be calculated and deposited within a period of 12 weeks.

¶17

The claimant has suffered 75% disability of his body and therefore loss of income would Rs. 1,800/- when it would be Rs. 1,800x18,12=3,88,800/-. The Tribunal could not have deducted 20% of the income admissible, on the

¶18

ground of grant of lump sum amount.

¶19

The judgment and decree shall stand modified to the aforesaid incident.

¶20

Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. Additional amount be calculated and deposited within twelve weeks from today.

¶21

Record and proceedings be sent back to the lower Court. Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Krishna

Gangu Ram v. Rishi Pal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangu Ram v. Rishi Pal 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

Smt. Kamlesh Kumary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Vs State of Up and Another

Sanjay Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Vs Ram Prasad Dhiman and Another

Jagdish Vs Addl. District Judge/Spl. Judge E.C.Act and Another

M/S Vikas Construction Thru Partner Vs Commissioner Regional P.F. Commissioner and Another