Allowed

Smt. Neelu Devi v. Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020FAFO/2975/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Insurance Claims Tribunal enhanced compensation quantum by applying multiplier of 18 per Pranay Sethi and awarded Rs. 70,000 as non-pecuniary damages. Apportionment was revisited: 65% to widow, 35% to mother, with balances directed to Post Office income schemes.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 32,35,480/-; 65% allocated to widow and 35% to mother; balances invested in Post Office income schemes.

Smt. Neelu Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2975 of 2017

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Neelu Devi Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Mayank Yadav,Vijay Prakash Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellant and SriVijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the claimant Smt. Neelu Devi being aggrieved by award dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2., Fatehpur on three grounds namely, age of the deceased was 22 years and therefore, in place of multiplier of 10 as has been applied by learned claims tribunal, multiplier of 18 will be applicable, secondly, only a sum of Rs. 20,000/has been awarded under the head of non-pecuniary damages whereas it will be Rs. 70,000/- as per the law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 , thirdly, wife has been awarded only 50% whereas 50% of the claim amount has been directed to be apportioned between father and mother. It is submitted that father is not the legal heir of the deceased and therefore, no compensation could have been awarded to be apportioned in favour of the father.

¶7

Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra submits that learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 10 in the light of the law laid down in case of Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal and others as reported in 2008 (3) TAC 661 . However, this argument needs to be rejected inasmuch as the issue of multiplier has been settled in case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and has been affirmed thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi which learned tribunal has failed to take into consideration.

¶8

Learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased and has added 50% towards future prospects considering the fact that the deceased was in permanent regular employment and thereafter had deducted 1/3rd of the amount treating it to have been spend by the deceased on self as he was working as a peon

¶9

in Civil Court, Auraiya and thereafter computed the annual dependency at Rs. 1,75,860/-.

¶10

Admittedly, learned tribunal has applied an incorrect multiplier which is dehors the law laid down in case of Sarla Verma. Multiplier of 18 will be applicable looking to the age of the deceased and therefore, total quantum of pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 31,65,480/- over and above which claimants will be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages taking total compensation to Rs. 32,35,480/-

¶11

Now, the issue which arises as how this amount is to be appropriated between the claimants, who is young widow of the deceased and the mother- respondent no. 4 Smt. Santosh Kumari, who is also a legal heir of the deceased.

¶12

Looking to the fact that widow has whole life in front of her whereas respondent no. 4 is fortunate to have her husband- Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav and it is not the case of respondent no. 4 that she was solely dependent on her son- Ankit Kumar for her sustenance thus it will be in the fitness of the things that if 65% claim amount is directed to be paid to the claimant-widow i.e., Rs. 21,03,062/- and remaining amount is directed to be paid to the respondent no. 4.

¶13

It is directed that out of compensation amount, Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid in cash and remaining amount which is payable to the claimant-widow shall be invested in long term monthly income deposit scheme of the Post Office so that she may derive a recurring income for her sustenance and that amount is kept intact for her older days. This amount will be invested in such monthly income scheme of Post Office so to fetch maximum benefit to the widow for a period of five years renewable thereafter till she attains the age of retirement.

¶14

Similarly, out of compensation amount awarded in favour of respondent no. 4, Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid in cash and remaining amount will also be invested in monthly income scheme of the Indian Post Office so to fetch her recurring income which may be used for her own upkeep.

¶15

With the aforesaid, appeal is disposed off.

¶16

Amount already deposited by the insurance company shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount will carry the same interest as has been awarded by the learned claims tribunal.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.2.2020 Vikram/-

Smt. Neelu Devi v. Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelu Devi v. Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors.

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

Bhagawat Deceased Beer Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector Ghaziabad and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs Smt. Kunti Devi

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs Jhabban Singh and 6 Ors.

Dropa Devi and 2 Others Vs Om Prakash Sharma and 6 Others

Smt. Sheetal and 3 Others Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Mathura and 2 Others

Adalat Vs Rahman and Another