Allowed

Smt. Shahnaz Parveen and Others v. Shree Rama Roadways and Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021FAFO/2036/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in a motor accident compensation matter. It increased the pecuniary compensation by enhancing the multiplier from 6 to 11 as per Sarla Verma guidelines and included future prospects. The claim for enhanced interest to 7% was rejected as the relevant rules were not applicable. The total compensation was enhanced by approximately Rs. 19.68 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 36,95,380/-, including future prospects and non-pecuniary damages; interest rate remains at 6%.

Smt. Shahnaz Parveen and Others Vs Shree Rama… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2036 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Shahnaz Parveen And Others Respondent :- Shree Rama Roadways And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

Sri Ram Singh submits that appellant no. 2 has died, but all the legal heirs of appellant no. 2 are on record, therefore, substitution application be allowed.

¶6

This contention of the appellant's counsel is not opposed, hence, substitution application is allowed.

¶7

Let necessary correction be carried out in the cause title during the course of the day.

¶8

Order on Appeal

¶9

This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh in Claim Case No. 781 of 2009 on four grounds namely, age of the deceased was more than 54 years and less than 55 years as has been discussed by the learned claims tribunal yet arbitrarily multiplier of 6 has been applied in violation of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶10

It is also submitted that claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 15% and payment of non-pecuniary damages to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand rupees) in the light 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.

¶11

Appellants also claim that interest has been awarded @ 6% which should be enhanced to 7% in terms of the U.P. Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2011.

¶12

Sri Aditya Singh Parihar submits that this U.P. Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2011 has come into force with effect from September, 2011 and therefore, that will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus no indulgence is required as far as rate of interest is concerned.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 6 in place of 11 and has not given any justification for doing so except that family pension is available to the wife of the deceased and eldest son of the deceased has been granted compassionate appointment. This treatment of facts in the hands of the learned tribunal is against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others as reported in 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) , therefore, multiplier of 11 will be applicable and not that of 6, as has been applied by learned tribunal.

¶14

As far as future prospects are concerned, they too are admissible in the light of the law laid down in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , future prospects @ 15% is admissible.

¶15

Learned tribunal has accepted income of the deceased at Rs. 31,844/- (thirty one thousand eight hundred forty four rupees) per month. After deducting 1/4th amount, the monthly dependency will come out to Rs. 23,883/- (twenty three thousand eight hundred eighty three rupees). When 15% amount is added toward future prospects, then total monthly dependency will come out to Rs. 27,465/- (twenty seven thousand four hundred sixty five rupees) or Rs. 3,29,580/(three lakhs twenty nine thousand five hundred eighty rupees) in place of Rs. 2,86,596/- (two lakhs eighty six thousand five hundred ninety six rupees) assessed by learned tribunal.

¶16

When multiplier of 11 as has been laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) , is applied then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 36,25,380/- (thirty six lakhs twenty five thousand three hundred eighty rupees). Over and above which the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/(seventy thousand rupees) under the head of non-pecuniary damages taking total compensation to Rs. 36,95,380/- (thirty six lakhs ninety five thousand three hundred eighty rupees) in place of Rs. 17,26,576/- (seventeen lakhs twenty six thousand five hundred seventy six rupees) awarded by the learned claims tribunal. Therefore, there will be an enhancement of Rs. 19,68,804/- (nineteen lakhs sixty eight thousand eight hundred four rupees), to which claimants will be entitled in addition to what has been awarded by the learned claims tribunal.

¶17

As far as rate of interest is concerned, it shall remain the same as has been awarded by the learned claims tribunal.

¶18

In above terms, appeal is disposed off.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Vikram/-

Smt. Shahnaz Parveen and Others v. Shree Rama Roadways and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shahnaz Parveen and Others v. Shree Rama Roadways and 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

Prakash Chandra Vs Kashinath and 9 Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Bir Bahadur Singh and Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ajay pal singh and 2 others

Nanak Chander and 3 Others Vs Onkar

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Babli and 5 Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Suklesh and Others