Allowed

Lal Bahadur Gupta and Another v. Shahan Shah 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2021FAFO/423/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim appeal, the court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal by correcting the multiplier applied based on the deceased's age and adjusting future prospects, leading to a total increase of approximately Rs. 6.75 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Pecuniary compensation enhanced to Rs. 9,07,200 and total compensation including non-pecuniary head to Rs. 9,37,200 with interest at 7%.

Lal Bahadur Gupta and Another Vs Shahan Shah 2 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 423 of 2016

¶3

Appellant :- Lal Bahadur Gupta And Another Respondent :- Shahan Shah 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved of award dated 30.11.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Allahabad in Claim Case No. 340 of 2013. Appeal has been filed on four grounds namely, income of the deceased has been computed at Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month whereas he was earning about Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees) per month from the business of dairy.

¶7

It is also submitted that looking to the age of the deceased to be 19 years, 40% future prospects is to be added. Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 14, whereas it should have been 18 as per the law laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also submitted that under the head of non-pecuniary compensation only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) has been awarded which needs to be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand rupees).

¶8

Sri Srivastava, in his turn, submits that the award is just and correct and therefore, no interference is required in the award.

¶9

After hearing arguments and going through the record, it is apparent that accident took place on 05.04.2013. Minimum wages even for an unskilled labour on the date of the accident was to the tune of Rs. 6,016/- (six thousand sixteen rupees) per month or rounded off to Rs. 6,000/- (six thousand rupees) per month. If 50% is deducted towards the amount spent by the deceased on self, then monthly dependency will come out to Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month. When 40% is added towards future prospects, as deceased was self employed, total

¶10

monthly dependency will come out to Rs. 4,200/- (four thousand two hundred rupees) per month or Rs. 50,400/- (fifty thousand four hundred rupees) per annum. Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 14 as per the age of the claimants, whereas it should be as per the age of the deceased and therefore, when multiplier of 18 is applied, then total quantum of pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 9,07,200/(nine lakhs seven thousand two hundred 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, taking total compensation to Rs. 9,37,200/- (nine lakhs thirty seven thousand two hundred rupees), in place of Rs. 2,62,000/- (two lakhs sixty two thousand rupees) awarded by the learned claims tribunal. Therefore, there will be an enhancement to the tune of Rs. 6,75,200/- (six lakhs seventy five thousand two hundred rupees) to the amount awarded by the learned claims tribunal, which shall also carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶11

It is directed that this enhanced amount shall be invested in Recurring Deposit Scheme of a scheduled Bank of an Indian Post Office for a period of 5 years, out of which, claimants will be entitled to use accrued interest every month.

¶12

In above terms, appeal is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.1.2021 Vikram/-

Lal Bahadur Gupta and Another v. Shahan Shah 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur Gupta and Another v. Shahan Shah 2 Ors.

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Shukla and 2 Others

General Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow Vs smt. Mamta Devi and 6 others

Smt. Janki Devi and Others Vs Bansi Dhar Yeti

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Tulsidas and 5 Others

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rita Singh and 7 Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Darshan Lal and 3 Others