Allowed

The Branch Manager the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Sonebhadra v. Smt. Anarkali Devi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020FAFO/3226/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of two first appeals related to a motor accident claim. It held that the correct multiplier for the deceased aged 54 years 10 months was 11, not 13. The Court also directed adding 15% for future prospects and increasing conventional heads of compensation, revising the total award from Rs. 32.33 lakh to Rs. 35.80 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased from Rs. 32,33,500 to Rs. 35,79,748 plus interest at 6% p.a. Modalities of multiplier, future prospects, and conventional heads directed.

The Branch Manager the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2020)

A.F.R.

Court No. - 4

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3226 of 2013 Appellant :- The Branch Manager The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Sonebhadra Respondent :- Smt. Anarkali Devi And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Birla,Arun Kumar Shukla,Pankaj Kumar Asthana

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Kumar Asthana,Rakesh Chandra Tiwari

¶6

connected with

¶7

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 577 of 2019 Appellant :- Smt. Anarkali Devi And 3 Ors. Respondent :- Gulab Chandra Yadav And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Rakesh Chandra Tiwari

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Pankaj Kumar Asthana

¶9

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶10

(By the Court)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

This F.A.F.O. No. 3226 of 2013 has been preferred by The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sonebhadra against the judgement and award dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Sonebhadra in M.A.C.P. No. 299 of 2010 (Smt. Anarkali Devi and others Vs. Gulab Chandra Yadav

¶13

¶14

and others) by which a sum of Rs. 32,33,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants-respondents for the death of one Hosila Prasad Dubey, husband of claimant-respondent no. 1 and father of claimant-respondent nos. 2 to 4, caused on 9.10.2010 as a result of the injury received by him in an accident which had taken place on 8.10.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indigo bearing registration no. U.P. 64L/8596 while the deceased was going on his motorcycle.

¶15

The F.A.F.O. No. 577 of 2019 has been preferred by the claimantappellants for enhancement of compensation.

¶16

The only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 3226 of 2013 has assailed the impugned judgment and award is that considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 11 in place of 13 as per the dictum laid down by the Apex court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.).

¶17

There is no dispute about the fact that at the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 54 years and 10 months and he was employed in N.T.P.C. and earning a sum of Rs. 30,828/- per month.

¶18

Paragraph 21 of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) which is relevant for our purpose reads as hereunder :

¶19

"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for

¶20

¶21

66 to 70 years."

¶22

Thus, in view of the above, the multiplier which should have been applied by the Tribunal for ascertaining the loss of dependency, should have been 11 and not 13.

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.F.O. No. 577 of 2019 that the Tribunal while computing the compensation, has failed to award any amount towards future prospects and the amount awarded under the conventional heads is not in consonance with the principle propounded by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093.

¶24

The constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) in subparagraph (iii) to (viii) of paragraph 61 has ruled inter-alia; that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax; in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.

¶25

In the instant case, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was permanently employed and his age was 54 years 10 months as per the salary slip of the deceased and hence the Tribunal ought to have awarded 15% of actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

¶26

¶27

We therefore, hold that while determining the income, the amount of 15% of his actual salary shall be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

¶28

We find that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/towards loss of estate. In sub-para (viii) of paragraph 61 of the Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the Apex Court has observed that reasonable figures under conventional heads namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.

¶29

We, accordingly, direct that the claimant-appellants in F.A.F.O. No. 577 of 2019 shall be entitled to sums of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- under the conventional heads namely funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate respectively.

¶30

We, accordingly, proceed to recalculate the compensation in the light of the aforesaid principles. As noted above, the actual salary of the deceased was Rs. 30,828/- per month or Rs. 3,69,936/- p.a. less tax. By adding 15% towards future prospects as the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the deemed gross income of the deceased would be Rs. 30,828/- + 15% of Rs. 30,828/- = Rs. 35,452/- per month or Rs. 4,25,424/p.a. After deducting 1/4th amount (i.e. 35,452-8863) towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family is determined as Rs. 26589/- per month or Rs. 3,19,068/- p.a. By applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 35,09,748/-. We further award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. We accordingly increase the compensation awarded to the claimants-respondents by the Tribunal from Rs. 32,33,500/- to Rs. 35,79,748/-. The claimants-respondents shall further be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the increased amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is

¶31

¶32

made.

¶33

The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶34

Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

¶35

The parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 8.1.2020 KS

The Branch Manager the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Sonebhadra v. Smt. Anarkali Devi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Sonebhadra v. Smt. Anarkali Devi and 5 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

Ram Ratan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Javir Ali Vs Government of India and 4 Others

Karan Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Executive Engineer Construction Vs Sri Siripat Yadav and Others

Mahesh Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar and Others Vs D.I.O.S. Meerut and Others