Allowed

Smt. Maiki Devi and Others v. Amar Bahadur Singh and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021FAFO/2389/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against an order from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, enhancing the compensation awarded for future prospects and non-pecuniary damages from Rs. 1,69,500 to Rs. 3,22,000 based on the deceased's age and minimum wages.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation to Rs. 3,22,000 with additional future prospects and non-pecuniary damages.

Smt. Maiki Devi and Others Vs Amar Bahadur Singh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2389 of 2004

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Maiki Devi And Others Respondent :- Amar Bahadur Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 1.6.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Fatehpur passed in MACP No. 273 of 2000 on the ground that accident which took place on 26.8.2000, the Tribunal construed income of the deceased @ Rs. 15000/- per annum which is much less than minimum wages for the relevant period as per notification issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, UP on 14.2.2000 finding it to the tune of Rs. 1248.86/- per month.

¶7

It is also submitted that no amount under the head of future prospects has been awarded. 1/4th deduction should have been made in place of 1/3rd as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others as reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. respectively. It is also submitted that future prospects should be added as the age of the deceased was 32 years.

¶8

Sri Arvind Kumar supports the award and submits that interest has not been awarded because Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that delay is caused by the claimants in disposal of the claim petition.

¶9

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that there is no error in computation of wages at the rate of 15000/- per year for the accident which took place on 26.8.2000. When 1/4th deduction is made and 40% is added towards future prospects then annual dependency will come out of Rs. 15750/-. As per the age of the deceased i.e. 32-years, multiplier of 16 will be applicable taking total non-

¶10

pecuniary compensation to Rs. 2,52,000/-. Over and above which claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs. 3,22,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs twenty two thousand only), against Rs. 1,69,500/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus there will be enhancement of Rs. 1,52,500/- (Rupees One lakh fifty two thousand and five hundred only) to which claimants will be entitled in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.This enhanced amount will earn interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶11

Finding of non-payment of interest does not call for any interference under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

In above terms, the appeal is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 S.K.S.

Smt. Maiki Devi and Others v. Amar Bahadur Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maiki Devi and Others v. Amar Bahadur Singh and Another

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Snehlata and 4 Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Baby Devi and Others

Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs Lalji Maurya and 2 Others

Sri Suresh Chandra and Another Vs Sunindra Singh and 2 Others

Smt. Radha Devi and 3 Others Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Mohd. Umar and Another Vs T.S. Roadways Pvt. Lyd. and 2 Ors.