Partly allowed

Smt. Kusum and 3 Ohters v. Sri Vinod Kumar and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2019FAFO/2835/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the court corrected a mathematical error in calculating dependency compensation and increased non-pecuniary damages to the statutory minimum of Rs.70,000/-. The respondent insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to grant Rs.11,46,600/- as compensation for dependency, Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary loss, Rs.27,000/- for medical expenses, and simple interest at 7% per annum. Insurance company dire

Smt. Kusum and 3 Ohters Vs Sri Vinod Kumar and 2… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 25

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2835 of 2013

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Kusum And 3 Ohters Respondent :- Sri Vinod Kumar And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Amresh Sinha

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Amresh Sinha, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Service on respondent nos.1 and 3 has been deemed sufficient vide order dated 1.4.2019.

¶7

Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Amresh Sinha,learned counsel for respondent no.2, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for parties submitted that question of only calculation mistake is involved in this appeal, for which lower court record is not required.

¶9

This appeal has been filed by claimants against award dated 9.7.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1168 of 2012.

¶10

Learned counsel for appellants submits that only two short points are involved in this appeal (i) with regard to calculation mistake committed by the Tribunal in computation of compensation and (ii) with regard to grant of lessor amount as compensation under non-pecuniary heads as has been settled by the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

¶11

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 does not dispute the calculation mistake in the impugned order, which is apparent on the face of record and also pointed out by appellants.

¶12

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that learned Tribunal has accepted the monthly income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and held that there must be deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of deceased. Considering his age to be 44 years at the time of accident, Tribunal has

¶13

allowed 30% enhancement of income in view of future prospects. In this way, learned Tribunal has found that out of the income of deceased, Rs.7,000/- per month 1/4th i.e. Rs.1750/- is to be deducted for personal expenses of deceased, after which dependency of appellants comes to Rs.5250/- per month. The learned Tribunal has also granted 30% enhancement but due to inadvertent mistake instead of calculating enhancement of 30% over Rs.5250/-, which comes to Rs.1575/-, it has been calculated as 30% of Rs.1575/- i.e. Rs.525/- with total dependency at Rs.1575/- + Rs.525/=Rs.2275/-, while the actual amount of dependency according to the order of Tribunal if calculated correctly comes to Rs.5250/- + Rs.1575/- = Rs.6,825/- per month or Rs.6,825/- x 12 = Rs.81,900/- per annum, which was loss of income suffered by appellants, on which by applying multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation towards monetary loss of dependency comes to Rs.5250/- + Rs.1575/- = Rs.6825/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.11,46,600/-, while due to above calculation mistake, the Tribunal has assessed annual loss at Rs.2275/- x 12= Rs.27,300/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 14 compensation was calculated at Rs.3,82,200/-.

¶14

As far as grant of compensation under non-pecuniary heads is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.47,000/- as compensation under non-pecuniary heads apart from Rs.27,000/- towards medical expenses and learned counsel for respondents submits that above compensation under nonpecuniary heads is adequate and in any case is short only by Rs.23,000/-.

¶15

The Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that in compensation claims upon death of a person, a sum of Rs.70,000/- must be awarded under non-pecuniary heads and there is no reason for awarding a lessor amount to appellants under non-pecuniary heads.

¶16

In view of discussions made above, the appeal is partly allowed and impugned award stands modified. The claimantsappellants will be entitled to get a sum of Rs.11,46,600/- as compensation as per findings of learned Tribunal upon correction of calculation mistake committed by Tribunal, apart from which they shall also be entitled to get Rs.27,000/towards medical expenses as awarded and Rs.70,000/- towards compensation under non-pecuniary heads. Over the amount of compensation, they will also be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The entire amount of compensation will be deposited by Insurance Company-respondent no.2 within three months before the Claims Tribunal and the same

¶17

will be distributed amongst claimants in the same ratio of 1/3rd to claimant-appellant no.1 and 2/3rd to claimants-appellant nos.2 to 4 and will be deposited in accordance with impugned order.

¶18

Let a copy of judgment be sent to Court below/M.A.C.T., Meerut for ascertaining necessary compliance.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.4.2019 Tamang

Smt. Kusum and 3 Ohters v. Sri Vinod Kumar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusum and 3 Ohters v. Sri Vinod Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshad Khan Vs Ashraf and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rahim Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ranjana Singh Vs Ajay Kumar

Shiv Nath and 3 Others Vs Rajendra Prasad

Neeraj Vs District Judge and Another