Partly allowed

Smt. Vidya Devi and Another v. Surendra Singh and Others

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022FAFO/1151/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of compensation for the death of Rajesh Yadav. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in using notional income when employment in a construction company was established. The Court enhanced notional income to Rs.36,000/-, revised the multiplier to 18, and awarded 40% for future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal directed to compute compensation based on Rs.36,000/- annual income, multiplier of 18, and 40% future prospect allowance.

Smt. Vidya Devi and Another Vs Surendra Singh and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1151 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Vidya Devi And Another Respondent :- Surendra Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Sinha,Deepali Srivastava Sinha,Subash Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 24.12.2007 passed by the MACT/District Judge, Fatehpur, in MACP No. 18 of 2004 for the death of one Rajesh Yadav.

¶7

Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate. He submits that the deceased was employed in a construction company and no evidence rebutting the fact that the deceased was employed in a construction company was led by the Insurance Company, therefore, the Tribunal should have taken Rs.36,000/- per annum as notional income even if there was no proof of income in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, 2008 AICC 915 (SC). Accordingly, it is submitted that the tribunal has erred in awarding compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/-. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged about 25 years, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 17 and should have awarded 40% towards future prospect, accordingly, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced by this Court.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and sufficient. It is further submitted that in the absence of any evidence on record with respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation on the basis of notional income,i.e., Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is correct and award does not need any interference by this Court.

¶9

I have heard considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

In the instant case, the claimants/appellants have stated that the deceased was employed in the construction company and no evidence was led by the Insurance Company in rebuttal of the same. In such view of the fact, this Court finds that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. Accordingly, following the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, 2008 AICC 915 (SC) , this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased should be taken to be Rs.36,000/- per annum for the purpose of computing the compensation. This Court also finds that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on lower side considering the age of the deceased who was 25 years of age and, therefore, this Court holds that the compensation shall be computed by applying multiplier of 18 instead of 17. This Court also awards 40% towards future prospects in view of the judgement of the National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680.

¶11

The Tribunal is also directed to compute the compensation in the light of the directions contained here-in-above. It is further

¶12

provided that the enhancement amount shall carry 6% simple interest from the date of filing of claim petition.

¶13

For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 NS

¶15

Digitally signed by NITIN KUMAR Date: 2022.09.20 09:45:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Vidya Devi and Another v. Surendra Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidya Devi and Another v. Surendra Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimla Devi and Others Vs M/S. A.B.C. India Ltd. T.R. Polan Road and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Muzaffarnagar Vs Smt. Savitri Devi and Others

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ram Ji Lal and Others

United India Insurance Co. through Br. Manager Vs Smt. Sureshwati and Others

Kaju Gupta Vs the Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Komal and Another