Partly allowed

Smt.Vinoda Devi and Others v. Imtiyaz Hasan Siddiqui and Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019FAFO/3032/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court modified the compensation award in a first appeal from a Motor Accident Claims Trial. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,59,000/- based on the deceased's income, age multiplier, and recent Supreme Court precedents. The rate of interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum. The case was disposed of partly in favor of the appellants, with the decree remanded for execution after deposit.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,59,000/-; interest fixed at 7.5% p.a.; order remanded to Tribunal for deposit and recovery.

Smt.Vinoda Devi and Others Vs Imtiyaz Hasan Siddiqui and Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3032 of 2007

¶3

Appellant :- Smt.Vinoda Devi And Others Respondent :- Imtiyaz Hasan Siddiqui And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ram Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Archana Singh,, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 12.7.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, SC/ST Act (herein after referred to as "Tribunal") in MACP No.421 of 2000 (Smt. Ratnesh & others vs. Imtiyaz and others), whereby a sum of Rs. 50,000 /- was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, which is unjust even in the year of accident. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least thrice. He was survived 3 dependents. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be disturbed and the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased.

¶9

It is submitted that the deceased being 38 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 15 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the claimants-appellant that the issue of a widow, minor daughter and married sister is dependant or not cannot be raised and at least, the married daughter would be entitled for the amount of compensation.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income, which has not been proved, 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

¶11

to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is submitted by counsel for the respondents.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.3000/- per month, namely Rs.36,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 38 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.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- = Rs.50,400/-, out of which 1/3 requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.16,800/- rounded up to Rs.17,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40 years, the applicable multiplier would be 15 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 2005. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.17,000/- x 15 + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.2,59,000/-.

¶13

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 :

¶14

"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."

¶15

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

¶16

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed .

¶17

The judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall first deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

¶18

amount is deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today and then recover the same from owner as per the order of Tribunal. I have not decided the issue of breach of policy as owner has chosen not to appear. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. Record be sent back to the Tribunal.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 25.9.2019/LN Tripathi

Smt.Vinoda Devi and Others v. Imtiyaz Hasan Siddiqui and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vinoda Devi and Others v. Imtiyaz Hasan Siddiqui 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

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta and Others

Krishna Lal Chhabra Vs Kailash Nath and Others

Smt. Kusum Alias Kusum Devi and Others Vs the New India Insurence Company Ltd. and Others

Saldeo and Another Vs Ayodhya and Others

Mohd. Iqbal Vs Bldeo Lal and Others

Mohd.Atiq Vs Shyam Gas Private Ltd. and Another