Partly allowed

Smt. Mahroophi Devi v. Anil Kumar

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2021FAFO/333/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court enhanced compensation in a fatal accident claim arising from a 1988 accident. The court recalculated loss of dependency by adjusting the deceased's income and applicable multiplier, citing Supreme Court precedents on future prospects. Interest rates were also modified.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,60,960/-; Interest fixed at 7.5% until deposit and 4% thereafter on additional amount; Amount transmitted to legal representatives.

Smt. Mahroophi Devi Vs Anil Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 333 of 1992 Appellant :- Smt. Mahroophi Devi Respondent :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Appellant :- R.K.Porwal Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

1. Heard Shri R.K.Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

¶5

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 13.12.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Etawah/E.C. Act, Etawah dated 13th December, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.28 of 1989 awarding a sum of Rs.67,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation.

¶6

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶7

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement and learned counsel submitted that deceased was agriculturist by profession and was

¶8

getting Rs.1000/- per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his widow, mother and father and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 is not in dispute. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased should have been granted 18 and not 20.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

¶10

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 5.9.1988 causing death of Vidya Ram who was 25 years of age and left behind him, widow, mother and father. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.400/- per month. The deceased was Agriculturist by profession. The tribunal has erred itself in not considering the income of the deceased and has deducted amount which he could not deduct holding that they were personal benefits to the deceased. We cannot concur with the tribunal as far as holding that the deceased was entitled to that the income was Rs.400/- per month. The income has to be considered to be Rs.600/- per month would be the income which would be admissible to the family. We are considering to be Rs.600/- per month which we feel is just and proper. The deductions made by the tribunal could not have been made. To which as the deceased was below the age of 40 years as an agriculturist, 40% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/3 as the deceased had three persons to

¶11

feed and not 1/4th. The multiplier of 20 could not have been granted even in the year 1988, it is reduced to 18.

¶12

7. In this backdrop let us see evaluate the income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation would be as follows:

¶13

i. Income Rs.600/- p.m.

¶14

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.240/-

¶15

iii. Total income : Rs. 600 + 240 = Rs.840/-

¶16

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 : Rs.560/-

¶17

v. Annual income : Rs.560 x 12 = Rs.6720/-

¶18

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25 years)

¶19

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.6720 x 18 = Rs.1,20,960/-

¶20

viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000/-

¶21

ix. Total compensation : Rs.1,60,960/- .

¶22

8. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

¶23

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."

¶24

9. The Apex Court in AIR 2021 SC 3301 case titled Lakkamma & others. v. The Regional Manager M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd & another.

¶25

10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed . Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount along with additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the amount was deposited/award of tribunal and 4% thereafter. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

¶26

11. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent has requested that as the matter is remained pending for more than 19 years. It is contended that no fault of them, the matter was not heard it remained in cold storage. It remained in the pending list of this High Court. Hence, interest caution may be lesser on the insurance company and that insurance company cannot be settled with heavy rates of interest.

¶27

12. Hence, from the date of pendency of this appeal, the interest caution will be 4% on the additional amount awarded. The appeal has remained pending for about 19 years and, therefore, no amount kept for fix deposit and the same may be transmitted to the accounts of the legal representatives, namely, widow and the mother, if alive or her legal heirs. Once giving bank accounts, it should be transferred by RTGS and/or other mode of transfer so that the amount are not utilized by any other persons.

¶28

Record be sent back to court below forthwith.

¶29

14. The amount be disbursed in the proportion which is ordered by the tribunal.

¶30

We are thankful to learned counsels for the parties for ably assisted the Court.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.12.2021 A.N. Mishra

Smt. Mahroophi Devi v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahroophi Devi v. Anil Kumar

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

Bharat Prasad Vs Ram Karan

Bharat Bansal Vs Ram Karan

Lallo and Another Vs Parsadi and Others

Vidya Sagar Pandey Vs Ram Chandra Ji Mahraj

Satywan and Others Vs Jai Nath Singh and Others

N.I.A. Co. Vs Smt. Asha Devi