Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022FAFO/144/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.70,000 to Rs.3,07,948 based on recalculated future prospects and loss of dependency, and reduced the interest rate to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,07,948; interest rate fixed at 7.5% p.a. Respondent deposit modified.

Smt. Shitla Devi and Others Vs the Oriental… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 144 of 1999

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Shitla Devi And Others Respondent :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Porwal

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

¶6

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 1.12.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Etawa (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.133 of 1990 awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% as compensation.

¶7

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶8

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement and learned counsel submitted that deceased was Class IV employee in Animal Husbandry by profession and was getting Rs.1368/- per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his widow and three major sons and hence the deduction towards

¶9

personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 is not in dispute. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased should have been granted 13 is also not in dispute.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 7.5.1990 causing death of Chandra Bhan who was 50 years of age and left behind him, widow and three major sons. The Tribunal has granted only Rs.70,000/- therefore the appellant is before this Court. The deceased was Class IV employee in Animal Husbandry by profession, the tribunal has committed grave error in not considering that the appellants had proved the income of the deceased by proper evidence. The witness was also examined so as to bring whom the contention that the deceased was a Class IV employee in Animal Husbandry by profession. The evidence of the witnesses has not been accepted which is also against the Judgment in the case of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186, and, therefore, we are obliged to hold that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries.

¶12

7. The judgment of the Apex Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021), 1 SCC 171 would also apply to the facts of this case.

¶13

8. As far as beneficial legislation is concerned, the strict rules of civil procedure and evidence Act are no required to adhered to.

¶14

9. In our case, prima facie it was proved that his income was

¶15

Rs.1368/- per month. The tribunal has erred itself in not considering the income of the deceased and has deducted amount which it could not deduct holding that they were personal benefits to the deceased. We cannot concur with the tribunal as far as holding that the deceased was earning Rs.1368/- per month. The income has to be considered to be Rs.1368/- per month, would be the income of the deceased. The deceased was age bracket of 40 to 50 years as salaried person, 30% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 . The multiplier of 13 granted is just and proper as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) where awarded sum of Rs.70,000+30,000 interest, we round up the same figure Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶16

10. In this backdrop were evaluate the income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation of compensation would be as follows:

¶17

i. Income Rs.1368/- p.m.

¶18

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 30% namely Rs.410/-

¶19

iii. Total income : Rs. 1368 + 410 = Rs.1778/-

¶20

iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.1333/-

¶21

v. Annual income : Rs.1333 x 12 = Rs.15,996/-

¶22

vi. Multiplier applicable : 13 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 46-50 years)

¶23

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.15,996 x 13 = Rs.2,07,948/-

¶24

viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads (Rs.70,000+30,000) =

¶25

1,00,000/-

¶26

ix. Total compensation (vii + viii): Rs.3,07,948/- .

¶27

11. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

¶28

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."

¶29

12. 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 along with additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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.

¶30

The insurance Company shall deposit the said amount as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

We are thankful to learned counsels for the parties for ably assisted the Court.

¶32

Record be sent back to court below forthwith, if any. Order Date :- 21.2.2022 / A.N. Mishra

¶33

Digitally signed by AMARNATH MISHRA Date: 2022.02.23 17:41:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shitla Devi and Others v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohd. Asgar and Others

Mamta Rani and Others Vs Jagdish Prasad and Others

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

E.S.I.C. Vs Sikandra

E.S.I.C. Ltd. Vs Neeraj

Smt. Sharanjit Kaur and Others Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Others