In an appeal against an accident compensation award, the Court modified the amount, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 6,37,000 with 7% interest.
Award of Rs. 6,37,000 with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 30
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2541 of 2011
Appellant :- Parveen Begum And Others Respondent :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Mohan Srivastava
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
As per office report, summons were sent to respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/6 by registered post, but neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgement returned after service. The summons are alleged to have been sent through registered post on correct address on 3.10.2017 hence, service of summons is deemed sufficient on respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/6.
Heard Shri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record of appeal as well as lower court record.
Present F.A.F.O. has been filed against the award dated 8.4.2011 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as Tribunal; in M.A.C.P. No.451/2006, Smt. Parveen Begum and others Vs. Abdul Qadeer and others awarding compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- to claimants-appellants on account of death of Mohd. Ehsan in road accident on 4.5.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.UP70B/9450 of Abdul Qadeer duly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd by duly licenced driver.
Brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed M.A.C.P. No.451 of 2006 on 18.7.2006 before Tribunal, with the allegations that Mohd. Ehsan aged about 38 years was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from shop of grocery, flowers & fruits, met with road accident on 4.5.2006 at about 12.00 in noon, due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. UP 70B 9450 by its driver in front of Primary School Koilaha on G.T. Road, P.S. Puramufti, District Kaushambi and died on the spot due to injuries sustained in the accident leaving behind him claimant-appellants, his widow and children as his heirs and legal representatives.
The factum of accident having taken place as per description given in claim petition is not disputed in this appeal. The findings of Tribunal have been challenged only with regard to
issue No.6 regarding quantum of compensation. In petition income of deceased was mentioned at Rs.6,000/- per month from grocery, fruits and flower shop and upon evidence learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of deceased and calculating the amount of dependency at Rs.27,000/- by applying multiplier of 16 awarded compensation with a sum of Rs.9500/- under conventional heads.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased left behind him his widow and six children, total seven members and so deduction of 1/5th amount of income must be made towards personal expenses of deceased.
In reply to above learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as per the law laid down by Apex Court and as per provisions of Rule 220A(2)(iii) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1998 a minor is to be considered as half unit and major as one unit and since 5 of children of deceased were minor, they will constitute to 2-1/2 unit apart from wife one son i.e. other two persons were major, who all constitute total 4-1/2 units and in view of above numbers of units/dependants deduction of 1/4th has been rightly made by Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , enhancement of 40% of income of deceased must have been applied for future prospects, which has been ignored by Tribunal and moreover compensation of Rs.70,000/- ought to have been awarded under conventional heads instead of which only Rs.9,500/- has been awarded by Tribunal. He has very fairly submitted that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 15 is required to be applied in this case while Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16.
Upon hearing parties counsel I find that in absence of any evidence of income of deceased learned Tribunal has rightly assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- or Rs.36,000/- per annum and has rightly made deduction of 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of deceased in view of total 4-1/2 units of dependants of deceased and dependency has also been rightly assessed at Rs.27,000/- per annum. Since the
deceased was below 40 years of age, there should have been 40% enhancement in view of future prospects of deceased and the Tribunal has acted wrongly in not considering future prospects of deceased. By giving 40% enhancement to amount of dependency Rs.27,000/- it comes to Rs.10,800/- and total dependency for the purpose of computation of compensation comes to Rs.37,800/- per annum on which a multiplier of 15 is required to be applied. Thus, compensation for monetary loss of income/dependency comes to Rs.37,800/- X 15= Rs.5,67,000/-. The appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/towards compensation under conventional heads, total Rs.6,37,000/-. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation with interest @ 6% per annum. As per rule 220A (6) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1998 as well as prevalent rate of interest in Nationalized Banks on Fixed Deposits, interest @ 7% per annum ought to have been granted. So appellants shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 7% per annum over the amount of compensation from the date of filing of petition till date of payment.
Appeal is partly allowed and impugned award stands modified for grant of compensation to the tune of total Rs.6,37,000/- only (Rupees Six Lac Thirty Seven Thousand only); with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition.
The amount of compensation will be deposited by respondent No.1, Insurer with the Tribunal in favour of claimant-appellants within three months after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. Upon deposit of total amount with interest 50% thereof will be paid to appellants and in order to safeguard their interests rest 50% will be deposited in their names in fixed deposit scheme in some Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years.
Let lower court record of claim petition be sent back to M.A.C.T./District Judge, Allahabad forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment, for necessary action, if any.
Order Date :- 16.4.2019 T. Sinha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal for death by road accident was legally sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherReferred¶11
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and othersReferred¶11
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Parveen Begum And Others
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
