Partly allowed

Anil Kumar v. Vijay Pal Singh and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2019FAFO/2512/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the low quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced the future loss of income and other damages, applied a 7.5% interest rate based on recent Apex Court directives, and modified the Tribunal's decree to Rs. 3,91,895/-.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Tribunal's judgment by enhancing compensation to Rs. 3,91,895/- and setting interest at 7.5% p.a.

Anil Kumar Vs Vijay Pal Singh and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 2512 of 2006

¶3

Appellant :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- Vijay Pal Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anju Shukla,Nigamendra Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant, challenges the judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 89 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs.60,295/- with interest at the rate of 6% for the injuries suffered by the claimant – appellant.

¶7

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.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered income of the injuredclaimant to be Rs.3,000/- per month which is unjust. 21 year of young boy has sustained injury. The tribunal has granted medical expenses and pain shock suffering. Tribunal has not granted amount under No Fault Liability. Though there is disability in left lower limb, the disability certificate has been countersigned by Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, hence as per Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2018 (5) SCC 656 and Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 , the disability can be considered to be 25% of the body as

¶9

¶10

a whole. His income has been considered to be Rs.3,000/- and future loss of income 40 per cent. 50% as of yet additional income from company as he was a driver in M/s Sumit Agra Paper Mill, Baghpat Road, Meerut.

¶11

It is further 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(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

¶14

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

¶15

As against this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that no future income loss can be granted as the income of the claimant has not been shown to have been decreased and, therefore, cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to be added as per the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 . It has not been shown by counsel for the respondent that the said amount cannot be enhanced. The amount awarded under other heads is also not required to be enhanced is the submission of counsel for the respondent.

¶16

¶17

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month namely Rs.54,000/- per year. To which as the injured was aged about 21 years at the time of accident, 50% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income to the injured 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.54,000 + 27,000 = Rs.81,000/-. The annual loss of the injured would be 20% namely Rs.16,200/-. As he was 21 years of age, multiplier of 18 would be applied. Hence, he would be entitled to Rs. 16,200 x 18 = Rs. 2,91,600/- plus Rs.25,000/- is granted for pain, shock and sufferings plus Rs.20,000/- under all others heads is granted and Rs.55,295/- for medical expenses. Hence, total of which would be Rs.3,91,895/-.

¶18

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 :

¶19

" 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. "

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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 respondentInsurance 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. Order Date :- 19.9.2019 Irshad

Anil Kumar v. Vijay Pal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Vijay Pal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Anara Devi and Others

U.I.I. Comp. Vs Smt. Savitri Devi

Smt. Santosh Devi Vs Sundi Singh

Bhagwan Devi and Another Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Narain Singh and Others

Smt. Usha Devi and Another Vs Naresh Chand and Another