Allowed

sushila devi v. united india insurance Co. Ltd. hrough manager and another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2021FAFO/522/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced the compensation by adjusting the number of dependents, adding 50% for future prospects, and increasing the non-pecuniary loss, awarding a total of Rs. 22,80,760/- with 7% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced pecuniary compensation to Rs. 22,10,760 and non-pecuniary compensation to Rs. 70,000, totaling Rs. 22,80,760/-, with 7% interest from the date of filing.

sushila devi Vs united india insurance Co. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 522 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sushila Devi Respondent :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hrough Manager And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Deepali Srivastava Sinha,Amit Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Saurabh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved of award dated 19.08.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge - III, Allahabad in MACP No. 566 of 2003.

¶6

It is submitted that this appeal has been filed on two grounds namely that deceased was aged about 36-years was working as Senior Auditor in the office of Accountant General, therefore, 50% future prospects is required to be added in the light of 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. It is also submitted that under conventional head a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded which needs to be enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-.

¶7

None for the respondent no. 2. As per order dated 1.10.2019 service on respondent no. 2 is deemed to be sufficient. Nobody is appearing for respondent no. 2, therefore, respondent no. 2 is proceeded ex parte.

¶8

Learned Tribunal has accepted income of the deceased to be Rs. 12282/-. It has come on record that deceased is survived by his wife Smt. Sushila Devi and two children Ishan and Jay though mother of the deceased has been impleaded as claimant, but it is not evident whether she is widow and was dependent on the deceased. Therefore, Tribunal erred in considering 4 dependents whereas it will be only 3 dependents. Thus there will be deduction of 1/3rd in place of 1/4th made by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus monthly dependency will come to Rs. 8188/- per month. Looking to age and occupation of the deceased, there will be 50% addition towards future prospects taking monthly dependency to Rs. 12283/- or Rs. 1,47,384/-

¶9

(Rupees One lakh forty seven thousand three hundred and eighty four only) per annum.

¶10

Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased to be 36-years. Therefore, multiplier of 15 will be applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs. 22,10,760/- (Rupees Twenty two lakhs ten thousand seven hundred and sixty). Over and above which claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs. 22,80,760/- (Rupees Twenty two lakhs eighty thousand seen hundred and sixty only) against a sum of Rs. 16,93,160/awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs. 5,87,600/- infavour of the claimant which shall also carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition in asmuch as learned Claims Tribunal has categorically noted in para-78 of its award that delay was caused in claim petition on account of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.2.2021 S.K.S.

sushila devi v. united india insurance Co. Ltd. hrough manager and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sushila devi v. united india insurance Co. Ltd. hrough manager 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kamlawati Devi and 5 Others

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Shiv Ram and Another

Sarla @ Rani Vs Sahiram Yadav and 2 Others

Smt. Lala Devi and Others Vs U P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Smt. Bhanu and 3 Others Vs Vishnu and 2 Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Dy. Manager Vs Smt. Gyanmati and 4 Others