Partly allowed

Smt. Shakeela Begum and Others v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2019FAFO/3200/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the compensation award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court modified the award to Rs. 5,74,000/- based on revised income and multiplier calculations, increased interest to 9%, and granted recovery rights to the insurer subject to conditions regarding vehicle fitness and permits.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,74,000/- with 9% interest. Judgment of the Tribunal modified. Recovery rights granted to insurer subject to owner proving vehicle fitness and permit.

Smt. Shakeela Begum and Others Vs New India… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3200 of 2004

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Shakeela Begum and Others Respondent :- New India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Agrawal,Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, XIII, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.Petition No.875 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.2,39,900/- with interest at the rate of 6%.

¶8

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has been given the recovery rights. The only issue to be decided is, the compensation.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7200/per annum which is unjust and it should have been at least to be Rs.4,000/- per month as the deceased was having power-loom factory. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that the amount under non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement.

¶10

[2]

¶11

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that as this is continuation of proceedings, they may be given right to recover from the owner as the matter proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal. Unfortunately, driver did not appear before the Tribunal. Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to bring-whom their submission that there was no fitness or the permit of the said truck.

¶12

Be that as it may be in absence of any proof, it is true that this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 2389 of 2016 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Vidyawati Devi and 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016 has held that the respondent can also raise oral submission against the finding which are against them. As far as the question of grant of recovery rights is concerned, it is an admitted position of fact that the owner did not discharge his primary liability to prove that the truck had fitness and permit. In that view of the matter, the judgment of Apex Court in Pappu and others Versus Vinod Kumar Lamba and others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 592 will apply and the insurance company is given recovery rights subject to the owner proving that there was fitness and permit of the truck involved in the accident which he has not produced before the Tribunal. The owner and driver shall have the right to lead evidence on this aspect.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.3000/- per month namely Rs.36,000/per year to which as the deceased was 37 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^rd to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased

¶14

[3]

¶15

as he had five dependants and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.33,600/-. 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.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2004. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.33,600/- x 15 +70,000 = Rs.5,74,000/-.

¶16

The rate of interest will have to be 9% and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Rules framed by the State of U.P. under the Act, 1988 will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decision of this High Court.

¶17

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 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. The Insurance company's oral cross objection is allowed. They shall have recovery rights against the owner subject to the aforementioned rider.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Mukesh

Smt. Shakeela Begum and Others v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakeela Begum and Others v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 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

Km. Taseerunnisha Vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Others

Smt. Akbari Begum and Others Vs U.P.S.R.T.C.

Girish Chandra Vs Dropati Devi and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Goyal and Another Vs Bhola Nath @ Bhola Shanker and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs Zubeda Khatoon and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Krishna Devi and Another