Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020FAFO/3052/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court increased future prospectus and revised total compensation based on minimum wages and multiplier principles, directing specific appropriation of funds for heirs.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,15,034/- payable with interest at 7% p.a., invested in post office and fixed deposit schemes as directed.

Smt. Sushila Devi and 5 Othrs. Vs Jeet Lal and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3052 of 2017 Appellant :- Smt. Sushila Devi And 5 Othrs. Respondent :- Jeet Lal And Another 3 Othrs. Counsel for Appellant :- Zulfeqar Ali,Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Aadesh Kumar Srivastava,Arvind Kumar,Mr Pradeep Kumar Sinha

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Zulfeqar Ali, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no 2.

¶5

This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 5, District Allahabad on four grounds namely:-

¶6

Income of the deceased has been computed on lower side at Rs. 5,000/- per month whereas deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/per month as Managing Director of Bansi Lal Memorial Prathamik Vidyalaya" Barai Harkh, Soraon, District Allahabad.

¶7

It is submitted that no amount under the head of future prospectus has been awarded whereas he was entitled to future prospectus as per the 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

It is also submitted that under non pecuniary damages a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded instead of Rs. 70,000/-. It is further submitted that since motor cycle was being driven by the deceased and there was an accident cover to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of personal accident cover from the National Insurance Company Limited that amount was required to be paid in addition to the compensation computed by learned claims tribunal.

¶9

As far as income is concerned, this certificate issued by Prathamik Vidyalaya is placed on record to show that of Rs. 15,000 per month was paid to the deceased. However, contrary to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant no salary certificate/pay slip/details of bank account have been produced to show the actual quantum of salary which was disbursed in the account of the deceased. Therefore, this argument that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- is firstly belied from the record produced by the claimants to show honorarium/salary of Rs. 15,000/- as is mentioned was actually paid and that cannot be accepted to be correct inasmuch as neither any cashbook or ledger of the society has been produced

¶10

to substantiate the payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the deceased as honorarium/salary. However, looking to the fact that deceased was aged about 41 years seven months at the time of the accident, he will be entitled to future prospectus, @ 25% under the head of non pecuniary compensation Rs. 70,000/should have been awarded in place to Rs. 25,000/-. However, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that in addition to the amount awarded by the claims tribunal, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of personal accident cover of the driver for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In the opinion of this Court that amount will be merged in the total compensation as will be assessed .

¶11

As accident took place on 13.12.2014 and on the date of the accident minimum wages for even an unskilled labourer were to the tune of Rs. 7,905/- per month or Rs. 94,860/- per annum, that can be taken as the wages which were received by the deceased at the time of accident while discharging his duties as Manager. Since deceased has survived by six legal heirs, there will be 1/4 deduction from this expected income towards the amount which deceased must have been spending on self.

¶12

This dependency come out to Rs. 71,145/- per annum. Over and above this addition @ 25%, towards future prospectus will take annual dependency to Rs,. 88,931/-. As deceased was between 41-45 years multiplier of 14 will be applicable as per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in 2009 6 SCC 121, taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs. 12,45,034/-, over and above which a sum of Rs. 70,000/- will be payable under the head of non pecuniary damages taking total compensation to Rs. 13,15,034 in place of Rs. 6,55,000/- awarded by learned claims tribunal in favour of the claimants. This amount will be paid along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶13

However, it is directed that out of this amount a sum of Rs. 7,15,034/- along with accrued interest will be appropriated in favour of the claimant no. 1, i.e. the wife of the deceased Smt. Shushila Devi and this amount shall be invested in monthly income scheme of the Indian Post Office for a period of five years so to fetch regualr recurring monthly income to the claimant for her own and maintenance of the family. Remaining amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- will be appropriated between claimant no. 2 to 5 at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- each along with accrued interest and that too will be invested in a fixed deposit scheme till the date they attain the age of majority.

¶14

In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 Ujjawal

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

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

Chief Mananger Northern Railway and 3 Others Vs Ittfal Ahmad