Allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020FAFO/2978/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court reduced future prospects from 50% to 40% noting temporary employment but upheld the 1/3 deduction and rejected contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to total compensation of Rs. 27,92,720 with mandatory deposit of Rs. 25,000 remitted to the tribunal.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Mamta Devi… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2978 of 2016

¶3

Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Mamta Devi And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Nath Chaubey,Vidya Kant Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 21.07.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat whereby learned tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. It is submitted that learned claims tribunal has over looked a fact that claimant was in temporary employment and therefore, he could not have been awarded 50% future prospects. Similarly, it is submitted that 1/4 deduction has been made from the income of the deceased whereas it should have been 1/3, looking to the fact that deceased is survived by three legal heirs and therefore, in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in 2009 6 SCC 121, 1/3 deduction is to be made and not 1/4th as has been made by learned claims tribunal. It is also submitted that aspect of contributory negligence has been over looked by the learned claims tribunal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondent/claimants on the other hand submits that though no cross objection/appeal has been filed but still he is entitled to raise this aspect that tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under non pecuniary damages against Rs. 70,000/- as admissible as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi as reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

¶8

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is evident that accident took place on 01.06.2015 when Hari Shankar @ Kallu was going to his residence at Rajpur from Sikandra on his motor cycle when he was hit by Mahindra Maximo Van Bearing Registration No. UP 77 T 6406.

¶9

It has come on record that due to such accident Hari Shankar died on 02.06.2015. It has also come on record that Hari Shankar was working as a driver in A.K. Communication and Infrastructure Private Limited and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs. 14,300/- per month.

¶10

Learned counsel for Insurance Company has drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence which was given by PW-3 Manoj Kumar Mishra working as Assistant Clerk in the office of A.K.Communication and Infrastructure Private Limited who clearly deposed in his cross examination that deceased was a contractual employee and was not a permanent employee of the company. Based on such evidence lead by the witness it is submitted that future prospectus will be only to the tune of 40% and not 50%. This argument prima facie deserves to be approved.

¶11

As far as deduction is concerned tribunal has made only 1/3 deduction and not to 1/4 as has been submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company therefore no modification is required on the aspect of deduction for personal use.

¶12

As far as contributory negligence is concerned that too has not been proved by leading any cogent evidence and that argument also deserves to be rejected. In view of such facts the award has to be modified in the following terms:-

¶13

Since income of the deceased has been accepted @ Rs. 14,300/per month there will be addition of 40% towards future prospectus taking total to Rs. 20,020 per month or Rs. 2,40,240 per annum. Since 1/3 deduction is to be made i.e. amount of Rs. 80,080 is to be deducted, therefore, annual dependency will come out to Rs. 1,60,160/- on which multiplier of 17 will be applicable taking compensation under the head of pecuniary damage to Rs. 27,22,720/-.

¶14

Over and above which claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damage taking total compensation to Rs. 27,92,720/- in place of Rs. 29,37,200/whereon same terms and condition shall apply as learned Tribunal has awarded.

¶15

In the above terms the appeal is disposed off.

¶16

At this stage Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra submits that mandatory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be remitted to the claims tribunal for adjustment for the payment of award amount.

¶17

Registry is directed to take steps within ten working days from today in this direction.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 Ujjawal

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi and 4 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

Ganpat and Another Vs Smt. Ram Shri

Rakesh Kumar Tyagi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector and Another

Hari Om Maheshwari Vs Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari Advocate and 4 Ors.

Ram Niwas and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector and Another

Smt. Sushila Devi and 5 Othrs. Vs Jeet Lal and Another 3 Othrs.

Chief Mananger Northern Railway and 3 Others Vs Ittfal Ahmad