Partly allowed

Mamta Rani and Others v. Jagdish Prasad and Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022FAFO/1034/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special leave to revise this Court computed fresh compensation for a motor accident victim by increasing income assessment, reducing personal expense deduction to 1/4th, changing multiplier to 13, and setting interest at 6%, while allowing non-pecuniary damages.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.2,15,000 with interest at 6% from date of filing; Tribunal judgment modified.

Mamta Rani and Others Vs Jagdish Prasad and Others — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1034 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- Mamta Rani And Others Respondent :- Jagdish Prasad And Others Counsel for Appellant :- D.C.Saxena,Rajiv Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Kuldip Shanker Amist

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Called in revise. None is present for the appellants. Heard Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 8.5.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Petition No.59 of 1986 awarding a sum of Rs.58,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%%.

¶7

The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The liability fixed on Insurance Company is also not in dispute. In that view, the judgment is not burdened by narrative facts except that which relates to grant of compensation. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶8

The Tribunal has considered the income of deceased to be Rs.750/- per month, deducted 1/2 towards his personal expenses , applied multiplier of 20 and that is how calculated the compensation to be Rs.90,000/-. The Tribunal has further deducted 35% from the above award for uncertainty of life and ultimately awarded Rs.58,500/- to the claimants as compensation.

¶9

The above award has been challenged by the appellants on the ground that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed by the Tribunal which according to them was at least Rs.1800/- per month. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which should be granted is also a ground urged in this appeal. Grant of multiplier, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages are also under challenge in this appeal.

¶10

Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, states that multiplier of 20 granted by the Tribunal is

¶11

bad. It is submitted by Sri Amist in his oral cross objection that the interest at the rate of 12% granted by the Tribunal is on much higher side and requires to be reduced.

¶12

On perusal of the grounds urged in appeal and impugned judgment and hearing the arguments advanced by Sri Amist, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased in the year of accident should be at least Rs.1200/- per month as it is proved that the family was having a general store (kirana shop), to which 25% should be added towards future loss of income as the deceased was around 50 years of age in view of the latest decisions in Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 . This Court is convinced by the arguments of Sri Amist that the deceased was considered to be 50 years of age, hence the applicable multiplier would be 13. The deceased was survived by his widow and five daughters, hence, the deduction towards his personal expenses would be 1/4th and not 1/2 as has been done by the Tribunal. As far as amounts under the head of non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the claimants would be entitled to a lump sum of Rs.40,000/- as the accident is of the year 1985. The amount for uncertainty of life could not have been deducted, hence, the same is set aside.

¶13

Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:

¶14

i. Income: Rs.1200/-

¶15

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.300/-

¶16

iii. Total income : Rs.1200 +300 = Rs.1500/-

¶17

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses : Rs.1125/-

¶18

v. Annual income : Rs.1125 x 12 = Rs.13,500/-

¶19

vi. Multiplier applicable : 13

¶20

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.13,500 x 13 = Rs.1,75,000/-

¶21

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

¶22

ix. Total compensation : Rs.2,15,000/-

¶23

As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, I am in agreement by the oral cross objection of Sri K.S. Amist that

¶24

12% could not have been the rate of interest even in the year of judgment. Hence, the interest is reduced to 6% considering the pendency of the matter and repo rate.

¶25

No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.

¶26

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 within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

¶27

This Court is thankful to Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the respondent for getting this old matter decided.

¶28

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 DKS

¶29

Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA Date: 2022.03.14 17:39:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mamta Rani and Others v. Jagdish Prasad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Rani and Others v. Jagdish Prasad 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

The Oriental Insurance Com.Ltd. Vs Vidya Ram Singh and Another

State of U.P. and Ors. Vs Km.Anubhooti Alias Eena

Oriental Insurance Co. Alld. Vs Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Others

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohd. Asgar and Others

Suraj Bhan Singh Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Smt. Shitla Devi and Others Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another