Partly allowed

Km. Taseerunnisha v. Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2019FAFO/1224/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partly, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court increased compensation to Rs. 5,59,200 based on Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi rulings regarding future loss of income and non-pecuniary damages, maintaining a 9% interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,59,200 with 9% interest; judgment and decree of Tribunal modified.

Km. Taseerunnisha Vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 1224 of 2004

¶3

Appellant :- Km. Taseerunnisha Respondent :- Mahesh Chandra Gupta And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 23.2.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Siddharth Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.4,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%.

¶7

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,500/- per month which is unjust. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income to the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . It is further submitted that the amount under non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court

¶10

¶11

feels that the income of the deceased would be Rs.3,500/per month namely Rs.42,000/- per year, to which as the deceased was 21 year of age, 40% of the income i.e. Rs. 16,800/- requires to be added as future income of the deceased in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would bring the annul figure to Rs.42,000 + 16,800 = Rs.58,800/-. After deduction of 1/2^rd , the annual datum figure available to the family would be Rs.29,400/-. As the deceased was 21 year of age, the applicable multiplier would be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In addition to that, Rs.30,000/- is granted under the head of non-pecuniary damages in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.29,400 x 18 + 30,000 = Rs. 5,59,200/-.

¶12

As far as rate of interest is concerned, a Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another), decided on 21.3.2017, have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court.

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Irshad

Km. Taseerunnisha v. Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Taseerunnisha v. Mahesh Chandra Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Vs Shyam Lal and Others

Smt. Ram Kali @ Phoolkali Vs Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and Another

Smt. Mandakini Vs Sri Ravindra Kumar and Another

Smt. Akbari Begum and Others Vs U.P.S.R.T.C.

Girish Chandra Vs Dropati Devi and 2 Others

Vidya Devi Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others