Partly allowed

Kamlesh Bahadur Singh and Another v. Sri Mangli Prasasd Gupta and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2019FAFO/3162/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,98,000 based on revised income and a multiplier of 18, adjusted interest to 9%, and remanded the case for deposit within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The judgment was modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,98,000 with interest at 9% until award and 6% thereafter, payable within 12 weeks.

Kamlesh Bahadur Singh and Another Vs Sri Mangli… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3162 of 2005

¶3

Appellant :- Kamlesh Bahadur Singh And Another Respondent :- Sri Mangli Prasasd Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar,Vidya Kant Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 6.9.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar (herein after referred to as "Tribunal") in MACP No.401/2004, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶8

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.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has considered Rs.15,000/- per annum to be the income of the deceased. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least twice. He was survived two dependents, namely, his parents. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be deducted as per the judgment of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased.

¶10

It is submitted that the deceased being 18 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 15 granted by the Tribunal requires to be disturbed and multiplier of 18 is required to be granted.

¶11

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 submitted that if this Court feels that additional amount has been granted as prospect then the additional amount under the head of future prospects has 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. It is submitted that the interest cannot be 18% as demanded by the counsel for the appellant.

¶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, in the year of the accident, namely 2004. Hence, Rs.36,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 18 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 1/2 requires to be

¶13

deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.25,200/- rounded up to Rs.26,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 16-20 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 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.30,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2005. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.26,000/- x 18 + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.4,98,000/-.

¶14

The rate of interest will have to be 9% and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in FAFO No.199 of 2017 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court, time and again, will ensure for the benefit of the appellants and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court.

¶15

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

¶16

Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 21.8.2019 LN Tripathi

Kamlesh Bahadur Singh and Another v. Sri Mangli Prasasd Gupta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Bahadur Singh and Another v. Sri Mangli Prasasd Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Mani Dwivedi Vs Jai Prakash Pandey and Others

Dharam Pal Singh Vs Up State Road Transport and Ors.

M/S Narendra Kumar Vs National Thermal Power Corp.

Awdhesh Kumar and Another Vs New India Assurance Company and Others

Dhunmun and Others Vs Ram Kumar Singh and Others

Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.and Others