Partly allowed

Mohd. Iqbal v. Bldeo Lal and Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019FAFO/1533/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The Court modified the Tribunal's award to include future loss of income and determined an enhanced compensation figure, while reducing the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal judgment modified to award Rs. 2,31,440 as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. The Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount with interest within 12 weeks.

Mohd. Iqbal Vs Bldeo Lal and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1533 of 2004

¶3

Appellant :- Mohd. Iqbal Respondent :- Bldeo Lal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Respondent:- S. K. Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

1.Heard Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 12.02.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 1004 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.16,362/with interest at the rate of 6% for the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant, who has fracture on his right leg.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred on 16.10.2002 is not in dispute. The insurance of the vehicle being invoked and there was no breach of policy condition. The insurance company has accepted the judgment as far as their liability is concerned. The owner has absented himself.

¶8

The tribunal has awarded total compensation to 22 years old stone grinder is Rs. 16,362/- with 6% rate of interest. The disability is 30% as opined by the Doctor. He has a fracture on right over limb. At least a sum of Rs. 25,000/should have been made admissible under the provision of no fault liabilities. As fracture causes permanent/partial

¶9

disablement. I am in agreement with the submission of Shri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel, let the amount paid here is even beyond the scope of appeal as the appellant claim before the Tribunal was for a sum of Rs. 1 lacs only. May that as it may be, this Court is under an obligation to decide what isjust compensation

¶10

It is submitted that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been granted. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the following authoritative pronouncement.

¶11

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

¶12

(ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735; (iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and

¶13

(iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.

¶14

As against this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that no future income loss can be granted as the income of the claimant has not been shown to have been decreased and, therefore, cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to be added as per the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs.

¶15

Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 . It has not been shown by counsel for the respondent that

¶16

the said amount cannot be enhanced. The amount awarded under other heads is also not required to be enhanced is the submission of counsel for the respondent.

¶17

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/- per month namely Rs. 24,000/- per year. To which as the injured was aged about 22 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income to the injured in view of the 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.24,000 + 9600+ = Rs.33,600/-. The annual loss of the injured would be 30% namely Rs.10,080/- and under all other heads amount of Rs. 50,000/- is just and proper for the accident which took place in the year 2002. Multiplier of 18 has been rightly granted by the Tribunal. Hence, he would be entitled to Rs. 10,080 x 18 + 50,000 = Rs. 2,31,440/-.

¶18

As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the interest should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

¶19

" 13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court. "

¶20

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

¶21

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgement and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Ravi Prakash

Mohd. Iqbal v. Bldeo Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Iqbal v. Bldeo Lal 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

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta and Others

Krishna Lal Chhabra Vs Kailash Nath and Others

Smt. Kusum Alias Kusum Devi and Others Vs the New India Insurence Company Ltd. and Others

Saldeo and Another Vs Ayodhya and Others

Mohd.Atiq Vs Shyam Gas Private Ltd. and Another

Smt.Vinoda Devi and Others Vs Imtiyaz Hasan Siddiqui and Others