Partly allowed

Gulapsa and 3 Others v. Mohammad Ismail and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2021FAFO/2257/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard an appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The appellant argued for higher compensation based on minimum wages and future prospects. The court calculated enhanced compensation and allowed the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.3,56,000 to Rs.11,05,930 granted; appeal allowed in part.

Gulapsa and 3 Others Vs Mohammad Ismail and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2257 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Gulapsa And 3 Others Respondent :- Mohammad Ismail And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 18.08.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur in Claim Case No.53 of 2018 on five grounds namely, for an accident which took place on 24.11.2017, Tribunal has taken into consideration income of the deceased @ 3,000/- per month overlooking the fact that deceased was engaged in the work of Tyre Panchar (repair) and, therefore, at least minimum wages should have been applied. Similarly, it is submitted that Tribunal has not awarded any future prospects which needs to be added @ 25% taking into consideration age of the deceased to be 43 years at the time of the accident. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation, whereas, it should have been 70,000/-(seventy thousand), as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, .

¶7

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, minimum wages even for an unskilled labourer on 24.11.2017 were to the tune of Rs.7,400/- per month. When 1/3 is deducted towards living expenses and

¶8

future prospect is added @ 25%, then annual dependency will be Rs.73,995/-(seventy three thousand and nine hundred ninety five). Since, learned Tribunal has accepted age of the deceased to be 43 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 will be applicable, as per the law laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others; 2009 (6) SCC 121, taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.10,35,930/-(ten lakhs thirty five thousand and nine hundred thirty). Over and above which, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-(seventy thousand) taking total compensation to Rs.11,05,930/-(eleven lakhs five thousand and nine hundred thirty) against Rs.3,56,000/-(three lakhs and fifty six thousand) awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there will be an enhancement of Rs.7,49,930/-(seven lakhs fourty nine thousand and nine hundred thirty).

¶9

No indulgence is required in the matter of interest and, therefore, appeal is allowed/disposed off in part.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.1.2021 Ashutosh

Gulapsa and 3 Others v. Mohammad Ismail and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulapsa and 3 Others v. Mohammad Ismail and 2 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

Mohd. Nafees and Another Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nirdesh Devi and 6 Others

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Neetu and 5 Others

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vidya Devi and 5 Others

Devender Kumar Verma Alis Muniya and Others Vs R.S.R.T.C. and Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Geeta Bhatia and 4 Others