Partly allowed

Smt.Maya Devi and Another v. Ranjeet Singh and Another

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2019FAFO/2334/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, this Court enhanced compensation by applying henceforth-settled principles regarding income assessment, future loss of earnings, and non-pecuniary damage. The Court also standardized the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% as per recent Apex Court directions.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,13,840/- and interest rate modified to 7.5% per annum.

Smt.Maya Devi and Another Vs Ranjeet Singh and Another — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2334 of 2008 Appellant :- Smt.Maya Devi And Another Respondent :- Ranjeet Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Gopal Verma,Saurabh Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ashwini Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-owner, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and the perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶4

This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 10.4.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No. 293 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.74,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%.

¶5

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum.

¶6

The mother of the deceased has been substituted by legal heirs. The deceased was an unmarried person of 35 years and was an auto driver. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 36,000/- per month which is on the lower side and it should have been at least to be Rs.6,000/-. 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 the amount under non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties

¶8

and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased namely Rs.3600/- per month has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal, to which as the deceased was below 40 years of age, 40% of the income i.e. Rs. 6,000/- requires to be added as future income of the deceased in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would bring the annul figure to Rs.43,200 + 17,280 = 60,480/-. The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 as he was bachelor and survived by his mother. Hence, after deduction of 1/2, the annual datum figure available to the family would be Rs.30,240/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35, the applicable multiplier would be 16 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that, Rs.30,000/- is granted under the head of nonpecuniary damages in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) . Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,240 x 16 + 30,000 = 5,13,840/-

¶9

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 :

¶10

"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."

¶11

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

¶12

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 its portion of amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.8.2019 DKS

Smt.Maya Devi and Another v. Ranjeet Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Maya Devi and Another v. Ranjeet Singh and Another

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

Doopu Vs Parvos Alam and Others

Dev Nath Singh Chauhan and Others Vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs Rajveer Singh and Others

Balbir Singh Vs Chandra Pal Singh and Others

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur Vs Ram Prakash Dwivedi

Smt. Usha Devi and Others Vs Bhoori Singh and Another