Partly allowed

Smt. Rajeshwari and Others v. Narendra Kumar and Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2019FAFO/2126/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court partially allowed the first appeal in a motor accident claim. It enhanced the compensation amount by applying the future loss of income principle from Pranay Sethi and the multiplier from Sarla Verma. The interest rate was fixed at 9% based on Allahabad High Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,28,640; interest fixed at 9% from filing date and 4% thereafter; deposit ordered within 12 weeks.

Smt. Rajeshwari and Others Vs Narendra Kumar and Others — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2126 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Rajeshwari And Others Respondent :- Narendra Kumar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anju Shukla,Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 31.03.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 115 of 1995 awarding a sum of Rs.3,84,356/- with interest at the rate of 6%.

¶7

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has been decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them 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.2771/- which is on the lower side. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least twice as he was doing job in the Indian Army as a Naik. He was 35 years of age. It is submitted that as there was seven dependents of the deceased, the deduction under the head of personal expenses should be 1/4th. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income 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 amount under non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal also requires to be enhanced.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent

¶10

that the income in the year 1995 i.e. the year of accident for a person whose income has not been proved, Rs.2,771/- per month cannot be said to be on the lower side. It is further submitted that the multiplier should have been 16 as awarded by Tribunal as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35 as per the post-mortem report. It is also submitted that there were four minor and four minor consists two unit, hence, deduction towards personal expences has rightly been considered by the Tribunal. However, he could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects is not to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the interest cannot be paid as claimed by the appellants.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court finds that the income of the deceased Rs.2771/-per month namely Rs.33,252/- per year has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. To which, as the deceased was 35 years of age, 40% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would bring the figure to Rs.33,252 + Rs.13,301 = Rs.46,553/-. Out of which 1/4th requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and not 1/5th as argued by the counsel for the appellant, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.11,638/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In addition to that, Rs.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 1995. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.34,915 (i.e. Rs.46,553 - Rs.11,638) x 16 + Rs.70,000 =6,28,640/-.

¶12

The rate of interest will have to be 9% in view of the judgment of the 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 which has been followed by this Court time and again and which will enure for the benefit of the respondentInsurance Company.

¶13

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed . Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand

¶14

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 4% 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.

¶15

The right of recovery agreeable to the insurance company is maintained.

¶16

This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.10.2019 A.N. Mishra

Smt. Rajeshwari and Others v. Narendra Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeshwari and Others v. Narendra Kumar 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

Amar Singh Chhawra and 3 Others Vs Santosh Kumar and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kushma and Others

Smt.Manjeet Kaur Vs Aashu Agrawal and Others

Smt. Phoola Rani and Another Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chhatarpur and Another

Chhotey Lal Vs Raja Ram Gupta and Another

Arun Bajpai Vs Mushir Ahmad and Others