Allowed

Ram Babu and Anr. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Rm.M

Allahabad HC13 May 2019FAFO/1506/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award fixing compensation at Rs. 1,52,000. The Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 6,82,400, correcting the income assessment, applying a multiplier of 18, and adopting a 50% deduction for personal expenses per Sarla Verma.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,82,400 with interest at 7% p.a.; Respondent directed to deposit amount within two months.

Ram Babu and Anr. Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Rm.M — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1506 of 2012

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Babu And Anr. Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Rm.M Counsel for Appellant :- Vidya Kant Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Shri Devaang Savla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Shri Anuj Srivastava has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent in the Registry on 7.5.2019.

¶6

Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against impugned judgment and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar, hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" in M.A.C.P. No.1196 of 2009 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,52,000/-.

¶8

Brief facts relating to the case are that claimants-appellants filed M.A.C.P. No.1196 of 2009 with the averments that on 18.10.2009 Jitendra, 19 years old son of claimants-appellants was going by motorcycle No.UP78 BU 5879 with his friend Rajjab Ali from Billaur to Kannauj when Bus No.UP30 A7 108 of U.P.S.R.T.C., hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle" and "Corporation-respondent" being driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed with the motorcycle resulting in grievous injuries to Jitendra and Rajjab Ali, who died on way to hospital. It was also contended that deceased was a bachelor and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by work of tailoring. The Tribunal upon finding that accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending bus of Corporation, in absence of any cogent evidence regarding income of deceased assessed income of deceased as notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 15 awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation. Being aggrieved the claimants have come in appeal for enhancement.

¶9

Heard Shri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Devaang Savla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that learned

¶11

Tribunal has acted wrongly in taking income of deceased as notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which was proved to be Rs.6,000/- per annum from the evidence on record; that the learned Tribunal failed to consider enhancement on account of future prospects of deceased and also acted wrongly in applying multiplier of 15 in place of 18 and in awarding only Rs.2,000/under conventional heads and interest @ 6% per annum; that in the case of death of Rajjab Ali, who was going with the deceased Jitendra on the same motorcycle, in F.A.F.O. No.1355 of 2012, this Court on similar evidence assessed income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per annum and awarded 40% enhancement on account of future prospects, income of deceased is to be taken at Rs.6,000/- per annum; that in this case also income of deceased must be assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the Corporation supported the impugned award and contended that the Tribunal has wrongly made deduction of only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased while as per settled principle of law in the case of bachelor deduction of 1/2 is to be made; that the multiplier has been adopted by Tribunal of 15 in view of the age of claimants as per the law prevalent at that time and concedes that multiplier of 18 must be applicable according to the age of deceased; that the Tribunal has failed to consider contributory negligence of deceased, who was going on motorcycle with two pillion riders.

¶13

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record I find that the record relating to F.A.F.O. No.1355 of 2012 with respect to compensation in case of death of Rajjab Ali is not before this Court and so what was the evidence on record of claim petition relating to F.A.F.O. No.1355 of 2012 is not before this Court and order passed in F.A.F.O. No.1355 of 2012 may not be taken into consideration. As far as income of deceased is concerned, I find that the learned Tribunal has acted wrongly in taking notional income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and in view of evidence on record, as discussed in the impugned order, I find that income of deceased must be assessed at Rs.4,500/per month over which for the purpose of computation of just and appropriate amount of compensation in view of age of deceased not a salaried or permanently employed person 40% enhancement is to be made. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased while in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 50% deduction is to be made towards personal expenses of deceased, a bachelor. Hence, the compensation admissible to claimants-appellants works out as under:

¶14

Income Rs. 4,500/- p.m. X 12= Rs.54,000/- p.a.

¶15

40% addition for future prospects Rs.54,000 X 40/100= Rs.21,600/- p.a.

¶16

Total Income Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- p.a.

¶17

50% deduction for personal expenses Rs.75,600/- X 50/100 = Rs.37,800/-

¶18

Dependency Rs.75,600/- - Rs.37,800/- = Rs.37,800/-

¶19

Multiplier Rs.37,800/- X 18 = Rs.6,80,400/-

¶20

For funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.6,82,400/-

¶21

Total compensation Rs.6,82,400/-.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claimantsappellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.6,82,400/with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment.

¶23

Appeal is allowed and impugned award is modified accordingly.

¶24

Respondent-Corporation shall deposit the entire amount of compensation with interest thereon with the Tribunal within two months from today. Amount of statutory deposit be sent to Tribunal, if not sent earlier.

¶25

Let lower court record of claim petition be sent back to M.A.C.T./District Judge, Kanpur Nagar forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment, for ascertaining necessary compliance.

¶26

Order Date :- 13.5.2019 T. Sinha

Ram Babu and Anr. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Rm.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu and Anr. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Rm.M

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. Ram Devi and 4 Others Vs Jubair Ahmad and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Yadav @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Prem Kishore Sharma Vs Yad Ram and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Inspector Singh and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Nirmala Devi

Raju and 3 Others Vs Mahar Chand and 3 Others