Allowed

Jag Lal and Another v. Vinod and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021FAFO/34/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeal against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, a single-judge bench enhanced the pecuniary compensation by calculating disposable income based on minimum wages and adjusting for living expenses. The court also recalculated non-pecuniary compensation, allowing a modest enhancement of Rs. 2,053.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced pecuniary compensation to Rs. 8,85,053 and non-pecuniary compensation by Rs. 11,000, resulting in a total enhancement of Rs. 2,053 over the Tribunal's award.

Jag Lal and Another Vs Vinod and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 34 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Jag Lal And Another Respondent :- Vinod And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Prem Shankar

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prem Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants being aggrieved of the award dated 20.10.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur in Claim Case No. 70 of 2014, on the ground that income of the deceased has been treated as Rs. 200/- (two hundred rupees) per day or Rs. 6,000/(six thousand rupees) per month whereas he was earning about Rs. 350/- (three hundred fifty rupees) per day and that income should have been taken into consideration. It has come on record and which is not rebutted that deceased was engaged in the business of vending milk and was working as agent of insurance company. Therefore, income of deceased should have been construed at least @ Rs. 350/- (three hundred fifty rupees) per day and accordingly, computation of compensation should have been made.

¶7

Sri Sahai, in his turn, submits that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 350/- (three hundred fifty rupees) per day or was engaged as an agent of private insurance company. Therefore, he has to be best treated as an unskilled labour and accordingly, computation can be made. It is also submitted that since deceased was not in a regular employment, therefore, learned tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects in place of 40% in the light of the law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680.

¶8

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that if minimum wages on the date of accident for an unskilled labour are taken into consideration, then they were Rs. 6,362/- (six thousand three hundred sixty two rupees) per month. 50% is to be deducted towards living expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor. Therefore, disposable income will be to the tune of Rs. 3,181/(three thousand one hundred eighty one rupees) per month. When 40% is added towards future prospects, then monthly

¶9

dependency will come out to Rs. 4,453.40/- (four thousand four hundred fifty three rupees and forty paise) or Rs. 53,441/- (fifty three thousand four hundred forty one rupees) per annum. Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 which will take pecuniary compensation to Rs. 8,55,053/- (eight lakhs fifty five thousand fifty three rupees). Over and above which, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand rupees) under the head of non-pecuniary compensation against Rs. 19,000/(nineteen thousand rupees) awarded by learned tribunal. Therefore, claimants will be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 8,85,053/- (eight lakhs eighty five thousand fifty three rupees) in place of Rs. 8,83,000/- (eight lakhs eighty three thousand rupees) awarded by learned claims tribunal. Thus, there will be an enhancement to the tune of Rs. 2,053/- (two thousand fifty three rupees), to which claimants will be entitled in addition to what has been awarded by the learned tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.

¶10

5. In above terms, appeal is disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Vikram/-

Jag Lal and Another v. Vinod and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jag Lal and Another v. Vinod 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

Mamtesh and 2 Others Vs Mesers Mateshwari Engineering and Electrical Works and 2 Others

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kusum and 5 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Heera Devi and 2 Others

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vimla Devi and Others

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Allahabad Vs Anil Kumar and 2 Others

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sonika and 6 Others