Partly allowed

Idreesh Ahmad v. Khan Mohammad and Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2019FAFO/2490/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court enhanced the compensation quantum based on the deceased's income and applied a multiplier for the casualty age bracket, while also increasing the interest rate to 9% up to the award date.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree modified to award Rs.3,92,000/- plus interest at 9% till award date and 6% thereafter, to be deposited within 12 weeks.

Idreesh Ahmad Vs Khan Mohammad and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2490 of 2004

¶4

Appellant :- Idreesh Ahmad Respondent :- Khan Mohammad And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Ojha

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Rajeev Ojha, learned counsel for respondents.

¶7

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 07.04.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaushambi in Claim Petition No.47 of 2001 awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

¶8

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is 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.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have considered Rs.2,000/- per month which is not done even in the year of accident. The deceased was doing work of bidi maker and she was 35 years of age. She was survived by one son and her husband.

¶10

It is submitted by Sri Rajeev Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents that the income which has not been proved cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that

¶12

-2-

¶13

the income of the deceased should have been Rs.2,000/- per month namely Rs.24,000/- per year 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 come to Rs.24,000+9,600 = 33,600/- out of which 1/3rd requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.22,400/rounded up to Rs.22,000. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35 years, 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.40,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2001. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 22,000 x 16 +40,000 = Rs.3,92,000/-.

¶14

The rate of interest will have to be enhanced and I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Rajeev Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent that the Rules will apply. A 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 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decision of this High Court.

¶15

I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending the rate of interest requires to be decreased.

¶16

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

¶17

-3-

¶18

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 6% 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 16.08.2019 Shubhankar

Idreesh Ahmad v. Khan Mohammad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idreesh Ahmad v. Khan Mohammad 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

Smt. Shashi and Others Vs Sukan Kumar and Others

Lal Singh and Another Vs Professor Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti and Ors.

Anil Kumar and Others Vs Balvinder Kaur and Others

Farheemuddin and Another Vs Khan Mohammad and Others

Nizamuddin Vs Khan Mohammad and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kanpur Vs Kamal Nain Singh and Others