Allowed

Smt. Vidyawati and Another v. Amt Kumar Kerkatta and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020FAFO/937/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed in a motor accident case seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,71,000 to Rs. 6,62,680. The court held the Claims Tribunal's assessment of income as minimal was erroneous. Ruling enhancement based on minimum wage parameters and inflation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,62,680; Rs. 4,00,000 invested for widow, Rs. 62,680 paid in cash, Rs. 2,00,000 invested for major son.

Smt. Vidyawati and Another Vs Amt Kumar Kerkatta… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 937 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Vidyawati And Another Respondent :- Amt Kumar Kerkatta And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vipul Dube,Hanuman Prasad Dube Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

None for the appellants even when the list is revised. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 is present.

¶6

Sri Arvind Kumar fairly submits that this is a case filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, but at the same time he submits that there is no loss of property and the deceased has left sufficient estate in favour of the claimants, therefore, claimants are not entitled to any enhancement.

¶7

A perusal of the award reveals that accident took place on 04.08.2015 when husband of the claimant no. 1 and father of claimant no. 2- Rameshwar Yadav was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 93 AJ 7924 from 'Punch', to his residence, then at about 4:30 pm, motorcycle bearing registration no. MP 20 MD 5700 being owned and driven by the respondent no. 1- Amit Kumar Kerkatta collided with the motorcycle on which deceased was a pillion rider. Collusion was so severe that it resulted in immediate death of Rameshwar Yadav whereas another claimant Harishankar sustained grievous injuries.

¶8

Learned Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. (three thousand only) though the claimant's contention was that he was an agriculturist and earning about 1,20,000/- p.a. (one lakh twenty thousand only) from 25 bighas of agriculture land which he was tilling and cultivating for his livelihood.

¶9

Sri Arvind Kumar submits that since land which is the source of the bread and butter of the claimants is intact, therefore, claimants are not entitled to any enhancement. He further submits that widow is the only claimant and the claimant no. 2 is a major son and therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation.

¶10

In fact, loss of a bread earner and that too of a person, who is engaged in the agriculture activities can be computed in terms of minimum wages for an unskilled labourer inasmuch as

¶11

accident took place on 04.08.2015 and the minimum wages for such unskilled labourer was to the tune of Rs. 6,734.95/- p.m. (six thousand seven hundred thirty four and ninety five paise only). It is true that land has vested in the claimants as the estate of the deceased, but a lady cannot till that land alone and she will be required to deploy persons to reap benefits of cultivation and therefore, as a safe criterion which this Court has consistently adopted, minimum wages of unskilled labour can be taken as a parameter for determining a just compensation.

¶12

Learned Claims Tribunal has computed the income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. (three thousand only) on the basis of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohd. Tabbar and Another as reported in 2008 (2) TAC 394 SC , but in that case date of accident was 12.04.2004.

¶13

In view of such facts, when income is computed at Rs. 6,734.95/- p.m. (six thousand seven hundred thirty four and ninety five paise only) taking into consideration date of accident to be 04.08.2015 and inflation from 2004 to 2015, which has been taken care of, while computing minimum wages, then 1/3rd is to be deducted towards the income which the deceased must have been spending on self that will come out to Rs. 2,244.98/- p.m.(two thousand two hundred forty four and ninety eight paise), therefore, dependency of the family will come out to Rs. 4,489.97/- p.m. (four thousand four hundred eighty nine and ninety seven paise only) which is rounded off to Rs. 4,490/- p.m. (four thousand four hundred ninety only) or Rs. 53,880/- p.a. (fifty three thousand eight hundred eighty only).

¶14

Learned tribunal has applied a multiplier of 11, based on the age of the deceased treating it to be between 50 and 55 years which is the correct multiplier and therefore, when multiplier of 11 is applied, then total compensation under pecuniary head will come out to Rs. 5,92,680/- (five lakhs ninety two thousand six hundred and eighty only). Over and above this, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand only) under non-pecuniary heads in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others as reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 taking total compensation to Rs. 6,62,680/- (six lakhs sixty two thousand six hundred and eighty only) against Rs. 2,71,000/- (two lakhs seventy one thousand only) awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there will be an enhancement of Rs. 3,91,680/(three lakhs ninety one thousand six hundred and eighty only) which shall also carry interest at the same rate i.e., 7% p.a. as has been awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. It is further

¶15

directed that with a view to secure future of the claimant no. 1, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakhs only) shall remain invested in the monthly income scheme of the Indian Post Office whereas Rs. 62,680/- (sixty two thousand six hundred and eighty only) be paid to her in cash and remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs only) shall be payable to claimant no. 2 which too shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt or monthly income scheme of Indian Post Office so that it may be utilised for the well being of the claimant no. 2.

¶16

With the aforesaid modification, appeal is disposed off. Order Date :- 10.7.2020 Vikram/-

Smt. Vidyawati and Another v. Amt Kumar Kerkatta and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidyawati and Another v. Amt Kumar Kerkatta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Kumar Malviya Vs Union of India and 4 Others