Partly allowed

Smt. Nirvala Devi and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2019FAFO/1745/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court held impugned income assessment wrong per Sarla Verma guidelines and compensation inadequate per Pranay Sethi principles. Modified award considering future prospects, correct multiplier, and conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; compensation recalculated based on Rs. 4,500/month income, future prospects, and correct multiplier with interest.

Smt. Nirvala Devi and Another Vs United India… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1745 of 2017 Appellant :- Smt. Nirvala Devi And Another Respondent :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Mohan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd.Haseeb Uddin Siddiqu

¶3

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶4

As per office report summons were sent to respondent nos.2 & 3 through registered post A.D. which have not returned back after service or without service.

¶5

The postal receipts are on record.

¶6

In view of proviso under Order V Rule 9(5) of C.P.C. the service of summons is deemed sufficient on respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶7

The present first appeal from order has been filed against impugned award dated 18.3.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.206 of 2015 (Smt. Nirvala Devi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others) by which a sum of Rs.2,93,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimantsappellants, who have preferred appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶8

The brief facts relating to the case are that claimants-appellants filed Claim Petition No.206 of 2015 with averments that their son Krishna Kant, aged about 21 years, was working in Vizman Power J.N.S., Manesar, District Gurgaon, State of Haryana at Rs.5,965/- per month and on 27.5.2015 at about 12:20 p.m. when he was going from his house to Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Aranw to fetch his father on Mainpuri-Sikohabad Road between Bamai and Aranw in from of shop of Brijveer Singh, D.C.M. No.U.P.-83-T-3819 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed motorcycle of Krishna Kant resulting in grievous injuries to him and his death on the spot. It was also contended that offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 Shailendra Kumar, was being driven by respondent no.3 Dharmendra Kumar holding a valid driving license and was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.

¶9

Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Rai, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Mohd. Haseeb Uddin Siddiqu, learned counsel for respondent no.1-Insurance Company.

¶10

The Tribunal has disbelieved the salary certificate of private firm produced by claimants for want of proof by concerned officer and assessing notional income of deceased @ Rs.100/per day or Rs.3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of deceased being bachelor and applying multiplier of 16 awarded Rs.2,88,000/towards monitory loss and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, total Rs.2,93,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

¶11

Upon hearing parties' counsel and perusal of record, I find that in disbelieving the salary certificate of a private firm for want of proof Tribunal has not committed any mistake, however, the minimum income of deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month or Rs.54,000/- per annum in view of settled principles of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121.

¶12

Tribunal has also not awarded adequate amount as compensation under conventional heads and in view of law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC (FB) 680, the claimants-appellants are found entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/under conventional heads. The Tribunal has also failed to consider future prospects on account of which 40% enhancement was required over the income of deceased and in view of 21 years age of deceased Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 18 and acted wrongly in applying multiplier of 16.

¶13

In view of the discussions made above and in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that claimantsappellants are entitled to get compensation to be calculated at monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month or Rs.54,000/- per annum. On above income 40% will be added towards future prospects in view of age of deceased and out of total amount 50% will be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased to calculate annual amount of dependency to which multiplier of 18 will be applied to arrive at monitory loss suffered by claimants-appellants and in such amount Rs.40,000/- will be added as compensation under conventional heads to calculate the total amount of compensation payable to claimants-appellants. The claimants-appellants will also be entitled to get simple interest of 7% per annum over total amount of compensation from the date of filing of petition till date of payment.

¶14

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified accordingly.

¶15

The respondent no.1 shall deposit the entire amount of compensation calculated as per above details with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of deposit, within two months from today, which shall be paid to claimants-appellants as per impugned award.

¶16

The amount of statutory deposit, if any, will be sent to Tribunal.

¶17

Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order for ascertaining necessary compliance.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.5.2019 Kpy

Smt. Nirvala Devi and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nirvala Devi and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P.S.R.T.C. Azamgarh Vs Smt. Kalpana Devi and Others

Smt. Raj Kumari @ Asha Devi Vs Smt. Meera Devi and 7 Others

Shafi Ahmad and Others Vs Raghuveer Singh

Shivkumar Vs Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam and Another

Yashoda Devi and 4 Others Vs Trideep Shankar Singh and 2 Others

Foram Singh and Another Vs Smt. Shakuntala and 3 Others