Partly allowed

Mahesh and 5 Others v. M/S Satyawati Hospital and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019FAFO/1816/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, court enhanced compensation awarded to claimants for death in accident involving ambulance. Court applied full bench principle regarding future prospects and adjusted conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,07,600 with simple interest at 7% per annum from filing of claim petition until payment.

Mahesh and 5 Others Vs M/S Satyawati Hospital and 2… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1816 of 2015

¶3

Appellant :- Mahesh And 5 Others Respondent :- M/S Satyawati Hospital And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Mishra,Mohan Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for claimants/appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record.

¶6

The present First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 13.04.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as MACT) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.796 of 2012 (Mahesh and others vs. M/s. Satyawati Hospital and others for enhancement of amount of compensation which has been awarded as Rs.3,93,500/- by the Tribunal.

¶7

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that factum of accident is not disputed. As per averments made in claim petition on 6.5.2012 at about 5.15 p.m. when Smt. Tulsa wife of claimants/appellants no.1 and mother of claimants/appellants nos.2 to 6 was waiting for vehicle with her husband, a Maruti Van Ambulance bearing registration No.UP-16/C-9976 and being driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed her at about 5.15 p.m. resulting in grievous injuries and despite best efforts she died on the same day during treatment. It is not disputed that the Ambulance in question, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.1 M/s. Satyawati Hospital and at the time of hospital was being driven by Suraj Sharma duly licensed driver and was duly insured with respondent no.2, United Insurance Co. Ltd. The only point raised in this

¶8

appeal by the counsel for appellant is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that learned Tribunal has acted wrongly in refusing to consider future prospects for no reason; that since total number of members in family were 6 then deduction of only 1/4 should have been made from income of deceased, which was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and the Tribunal has acted wrongly in making deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses of deceased; that under conventional heads a sum of Rs.9,500/- only has been awarded and no compensation has been awarded towards loss of love and affection to children.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for insurance company submitted that adequate compensation has been awarded under the impugned award and since out of 6 claimants/appellants, claimant nos. 2 to 6 are minor children so the total units of dependents on the alleged income of deceased comes to 3 1/2 only and deduction of 1/3 has been rightly made by Tribunal; that adequate amount of compensation has been awarded under conventional heads in view of the status conditions of deceased and claimants.

¶11

Upon hearing parties counsel & perusal of record, I find that since deceased had no income, Tribunal has rightly assessed her income at Rs.3,000/- per month but has acted wrongly in not considering future prospects. The age of deceased has been found to be 35 years and in view of law laid down by Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% enhancement ought to have been given in this case over the amount of annual dependency which has been assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. So enhancement of Rs.9,600/- per annum was required to be made towards future prospects on which total amount of dependency comes to Rs.33,600/- per annum.

¶12

Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16,

¶13

which is correct in view of the settled principles of law and as far as compensation under conventional head is concerned, I find that appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation under conventional heads in view of law laid down by Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi .

¶14

The appeal is partly allowed and impugned award is modified accordingly. The appellants are found entitled for a compensation of Rs.33,600.00 x 16 = Rs.5,37,600.00 + Rs.70,000.00 = Rs.6,07,600.00 with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till date of actual payment. The entire amount of compensation will be deposited by respondent no.2, Insurance Company with Tribunal in favour of claimantsappellants, within a period of 3 months after deducting the amount if any deposited earlier. On making of such deposit, the amount will be paid to claimants-appellants in accordance with impugned award.

¶15

Let a copy of judgment be sent to Court below/M.A.C.T., Meerut for ascertaining necessary compliance.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.4.2019 VS

Mahesh and 5 Others v. M/S Satyawati Hospital and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh and 5 Others v. M/S Satyawati Hospital 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Begum and Others Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Upendra Nath Chaubey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shamsad Bano Vs Smt. Bittan and Another

Raja Ram and Anr. Vs Anil Tiwari and 2 Others

Smt. Pramila Devi and 3 Ors. Vs Ghura Yadav Deceased and 5 Ors.

Gaurav Sharma Vs Principal Judge Family and Another