Partly allowed

State of U.P. and Another v. Mahesh Chandra and Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021FAFO/563/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal regarding a motor accident claim, the High Court scaled down interest from 12% to 9%. The court enhanced the award to Rs.1,20,000/- considering future prospects and non-pecuniary losses, applying principles from the Supreme Court's Pranay Sethi judgment, and remitted the matter to the Claims Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Interest reduced to 9%; compensation enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-; matter remitted to Claims Tribunal with predeposit for adjustment.

State of U.P. and Another Vs Mahesh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 563 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Mahesh Chandra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.,S.P.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Ji Verma,S.P.Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. through Collector, Jalaun at Orai and another being aggrieved of the award dated 04.02.1992 passed in Claim Case No.10 of 1983 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/2^nd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai on the ground that claimants cannot be treated as dependent as they are major, sons and daughters of the deceased. This issue is no more res integra.

¶7

As per the provisions contained in Section 166(1)(C), an application for compensation arising out of an accident is maintainable in the hands of a legal representative, therefore, this objection that claim petition is not maintainable because claimants are not dependent on the deceased is not made out.

¶8

Another ground which has been raised is that interest which has been awarded @ 12% per annum by the learned Claims Tribunal is too high under the facts and circumstances of the case and should have been on the lower scale taking into fact, rate of inflation etc. at the time of the accident.

¶9

Taking into fact generally prevalent rate of interest in the year 1982 in the range of 9 to 10% per annum. I deem it proper to scale down the rate of interest from 12% to 9%.

¶10

Learned counsel for the claimants in his cross objection has

¶11

submitted that proved income of the deceased was Rs.860/- per month and besides this she had additional income through tuition etc., therefore, award of Rs.1 lakh based on assumption and not on actual evidence is liable to be enhanced. It is submitted that no amount has been awarded under the head of future prospect etc.

¶12

Learned Tribunal has accepted income of the deceased at Rs.781/- per month with the break up of Rs.565/- as the basic pay and Rs.216/- as dearness allowance.

¶13

Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards the expenses made by the deceased on self, therefore, net disposable income in the hands of the claimants would have been Rs.521/- per month. It has come on record that date of birth of the deceased was 02.07.1941 i.e. at the time of the accident, she was about 41 years of age, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , there will be addition of 30% towards future prospects taking total monthly dependency to Rs.677.30/- or Rs.8127.60/- per year. As age of the deceased was 41 years, then multiplier of 14 will be applicable taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.1,13,786/-(one lakh thirteen thousand and seven hundred eighty six). For an accident of the year 1982, it will not be proper to award a sum of Rs.70,000/(seventy thousand) under the head of non-pecuniary expenses. Therefore, in the interest of justice and applying the principles of co-relation and regression a sum of Rs.6000/- under the head of non-pecuniary expenses will be sufficient in the interest of justice. Therefore, total compensation as rounded of will be Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, there will be an enhancement to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 9% which will be payable to the claimants.

¶14

In above terms, appeal and cross objections are disposed off.

¶15

It is made clear that amount already deposited as predeposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the learned Claims Tribunal along with accrued interest, if any, for adjustment against the final payment of the award amount.

¶16

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Ashutosh

State of U.P. and Another v. Mahesh Chandra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. and Another v. Mahesh Chandra and Others

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

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

Mohd. Nafees and Another Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nirdesh Devi and 6 Others

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Neetu and 5 Others