Partly allowed

Chhotey Lal v. Raja Ram Gupta and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2019FAFO/1130/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order awarding Rs. 1,50,000 for injuries sustained in a bus accident involving amputation. The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the award based on the multiplier method and future loss of income calculations, directing the respondents to deposit Rs. 6,81,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced to Rs. 6,81,000; respondents directed to deposit sum with interest within 12 weeks.

Chhotey Lal Vs Raja Ram Gupta and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1130 of 1999

¶3

Appellant :- Chhotey Lal Respondent :- Raja Ram Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Amaresh Sinha,Pradeep Kumar Sinha

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

1. Heard Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Amaresh Sinha and Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None present for the owner.

¶6

2. This appeal, at the behest of the injuredclaimant, challenges the judgment and order dated 25.02.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.764 of 1996 awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% for the injuries suffered by the claimantappellant.

¶7

3. The accident is not in dispute. The accident occurred on 18.8.1996 at 11.00 a.m. when the Bus No. UP 70E/9449 hit the injured from behind whereby he was rushed to the hospital and he sustained several injuries wherein one of the

¶8

injuries caused resulted into amputation of right lower limb above knee. The injured claimant was a rickshaw troll aged 40 years of age, his income Rs.2600/- per month and he had sustained 100% disability, but the tribunal granted 1,52,000/-. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellant herein. Respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. Hence, the only issue to be decided is compensation awarded.

¶9

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered Rs.1,52,000 /- per annum, which is unjust even in the year of accident. It is submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in not granting any amount for future loss of income. It has not considered the earning capacity to be 100% and the conventional amount also should have been granted looking to the disability of the claimant. The claimant was in hospital for one month, the amount under the pain of suffering granted by the Apex Court. He has relied on the following judgments to contend that he had suffered 100% disability as he was a rickshaw puller because of amputation. It is submitted that the tribunal granted Rs.75,000/- lump sum is bad in eye of law to bring this submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on:

¶10

(i) Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330;

¶11

(ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735; and

¶12

(iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178.

¶13

(iv) F.A.F.O. No.146 of 1998 (Prem Shankar Saraswat versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others decided on 14.02.2019.

¶14

(v) FAFO No.199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company versus Lavkush and another) decided on 21.03.2017.

¶15

5. As against this, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no evidence that the appellant was earning Rs.2500/- per month and the medical bills, which are produced are rightly not considered as the said shop was not there and, therefore, the claim for future medicine and for special diet cannot be granted.

¶16

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in not considering the multiplier method. the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income of the injured should be Rs.2500/- per month namely Rs.30,000/- per year, to which as the injured was aged about 40 years at the time of accident, 25% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income to the injured in view of the

¶17

decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed, Sadiq and others (Supra) which would bring the figure to Rs.30,000 + Rs.7,500 = Rs.37,500/-. The disability was 90%. However, the functional disability can be considered to be 90% as he has amputation of right lower limb. Hence, the loss in income would be Rs.33,750/- per year as he was 40 years of age. The multiplier of 15 will apply. Hence, he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,06,250/- for future loss of income. Under the head of pain of shock suffering, he would be entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- for amputation of right leg above knee. Towards medical expenses Rs.25,000/- for attendant and other charges Rs.50,000/-.

¶18

7. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.6,81,000/- round figure on all counts.

¶19

8. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed . Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

¶20

9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.

¶21

10. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.

¶22

11. Record and proceedings of the tribunal be sent back to the tribunal forthwith as it is the matter of 1998, no amount shall be kept in fix deposit. The additional amount be deposited within 12 weeks from today.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.10.2019 A.N. Mishra

Chhotey Lal v. Raja Ram Gupta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotey Lal v. Raja Ram Gupta 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

Amar Singh Chhawra and 3 Others Vs Santosh Kumar and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kushma and Others

Smt.Manjeet Kaur Vs Aashu Agrawal and Others

Smt. Rajeshwari and Others Vs Narendra Kumar and Others

Smt. Phoola Rani and Another Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chhatarpur and Another

Arun Bajpai Vs Mushir Ahmad and Others