Partly allowed

Girish Chandra v. Dropati Devi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2019FAFO/2193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Tribunal order. Court enhanced compensation quantum by revising future loss of income and interest rate, modifying the decree to award Rs. 6,37,600 with 7.5% interest.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order modified; appellant entitled to Rs. 6,37,600 plus 7.5% interest from date of claim petition.

Girish Chandra Vs Dropati Devi and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2193 of 2019 Appellant :- Girish Chandra Respondent :- Dropati Devi And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- Vipul Kumar,Vipul Kumar

¶2

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶3

Heard Sri V.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶4

This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant, challenges the judgment and order dated 21.1.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VII-Additional District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.312 of 2017 (Girish Chandra vs. Smt. Dropati Devi and others) awarding a sum of Rs.2,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% for the injuries suffered by the claimant – appellant.

¶5

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided in favour of the appellant herein. Respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. Hence, the only issue to be decided is, the quantum.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered income of the injured-claimant to be Rs.4000/- per month which is unjust and should be at least Rs.6,000/- per month. 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.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

As against this, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no evidence that the appellant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and the medical bills are also not produced and, therefore, the claim of Rs..1,00,000/- for future medicine and Rs.50,000/- for special diet cannot be granted.

¶10

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the Tribunal has not rightly assessed the income of the injured to be Rs.4,000/- per month namely Rs.48,000/- per year. The income of the injured can be considered to be Rs.5,000/- per month, to which as the injured was aged about 31 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income. 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.5,000/- + Rs.2,000 = Rs.7,000/-. The annual loss of the injured would be 40% of the income as the injured had functional disability of 40%. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.28,00/- x 12 x 16. Hence, he would be entitled to Rs. 5,37,600/- + Rs.25,000/- for pain, shock suffering and additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. The medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. Hence the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,37,600/- with 7.5% rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited.

¶11

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 :

¶12

"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."

¶13

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

¶14

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed . Judgment 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.10.2019/LN Tripathi

Girish Chandra v. Dropati Devi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra v. Dropati Devi 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

Rajendra Kumar Vs Shyam Lal and Others

Smt. Ram Kali @ Phoolkali Vs Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and Another

Smt. Mandakini Vs Sri Ravindra Kumar and Another

Km. Taseerunnisha Vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Others

Smt. Akbari Begum and Others Vs U.P.S.R.T.C.

Vidya Devi Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others