Allowed

Smt. Sunita Srivastava and Another v. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Aother

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021FAFO/2096/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It rectified the calculation of the deceased's salary and disability compensation, enhanced non-pecuniary damages and interest, and corrected the multiplier from 16 to 13 based on the Sarla Verma principle.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced pecuniary compensation to Rs. 17,18,312/- and non-pecuniary damages to Rs. 17,88,392/- with interest at 7% from petition filing date.

Smt. Sunita Srivastava and Another Vs the United… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2096 of 2006

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Sunita Srivastava And Another Respondent :- The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Aother Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- , ,Saurabh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 31.5.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P.No.604 of 2004 on four grounds viz., income of the deceased has been wrongly computed, future prospect has not been awarded, under non-pecuniary head only a sum of Rs.9,500/- has been awarded and interest is awarded @ 7% which needs to be enhanced.

¶7

It is an admitted fact that deceased was an employee of the Institute of Tool Room Training, U.P. and as per his salary certificate issued by the Project Manager on 28.3.2006 available on record his total salary was Rs.12,872/-, but Tribunal accepted only the basic salary of Rs.2,975/- per month, which is factually incorrect.

¶8

Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents after going through the certificate admits that except for conveyance and personal pay, other things are to be accepted as part of the income. He submits that income tax is required to be deducted.

¶9

From salary sheet enclosed along with the record of the trial court and proved by Shri Rajan Kumar, P.W.-3 no income tax was deducted from the salary of the deceased. But fact of the matter is that for the purposes of calculation of emoluments his salary can be taken as Rs.12,710/- as per the last salary drawn certificate. after deduction of conveyance allowance.

¶10

Thus calculation is to be made on the basis of accepted salary of Rs.12,710/- per month or Rs.1,52,520/- per annum. Claimants are two in number therefore, 1/3rd deduction is to be made towards the living expenses of the deceased which will lead to dependency of claimants to Rs.1,01,680/-, over and above which 30% is to be added towards future prospects in as much as Tribunal has admitted age of the deceased to be 47 years and

¶11

has accepted the fact that he was in a regular permanent salaried employment, therefore, total annual dependency will come out to Rs.1,32,184/-. Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 which in fact as per the law laid in case of Sarla Verma will be that of 13 taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.17,18,312/- over and above which claimants are entitled to sum of Rs.70,000/under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs.17,88,392/- (Seventeen lakhs eighty eight thousand three hundred and ninety two only) against a sum of Rs.3,90,300/- (Three lakhs ninety thousand and ninety two only) awarded by learned claims Tribunal, therefore, there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs.13,98,092/- (Thirteen lakhs ninety eight thousand and ninety two only) which shall also earn interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶12

In above terms, the appeal is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.2.2021 VS

Smt. Sunita Srivastava and Another v. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Aother

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Srivastava and Another v. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Aother

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

Jai Raj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sumaiya Vs Ehteyshamul Haq and 4 Others

Veena Devi Vs Ramakant and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surendra and Others

Narain Singh @ Shiv Narain Singh Vs Smt. Suman Devi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vipin Behari Srivastava and Others