Partly allowed

Bindeshwari Prasad v. Vinod Singh and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022FAFO/1675/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the appeal against an MACT award for death by motor vehicle accident. The court enhanced the deceased's monthly income to Rs.4000/-, increased the multiplier from 5 to 13, and raised non-pecuniary damages to Rs.30,000/-, directing the tribunal to recalculate compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; Tribunal directed to recalculate compensation based on Rs.4000/- monthly income, multiplier of 13, and Rs.30,000/- non-pecuniary damages.

Bindeshwari Prasad Vs Vinod Singh and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1675 of 2014

¶3

Appellant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Respondent :- Vinod Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 11.04.2014 passed by MACT/District Judge, Kaushambi Nagar for enhancement of the award.

¶7

The Tribunal by award dated 11.04.2014 has awarded Rs.1,05,000/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for death of one Jagatpal in an accident on 22.10.2021 with truck no.HR-38/J-1306.

¶8

Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident had taken place on 22.10.2011 and there was ample evidence on record which established that the deceased was earning around Rs.4000/- per month. Thus, the tribunal has erred in law in assessing the compensation treating the income to be Rs.3000/- per month. It is further contended that the deceased was aged about 50 years and the tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 13 instead of 5. Further, submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is also entitled to 25% towards future prospect in

¶9

view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is further contended that Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages has been awarded by the tribunal is on lower side, the tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.30,000/-

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the claimant is brother of the deceased and he does not fall within the definition of dependents of family, hence, it is submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable on behalf of appellant. It is further contended that the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation.

¶11

In the instant case, the accident had taken place in the year 2014. In the opinion of the Court, considering the fact that the deceased was agriculturist and there was ample evidence on record to establish that the deceased was doing agriculture work, this Court finds that the income assessed by the tribunal to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month is on lower side and the tribunal ought to have taken Rs.4000/- per month as income of the deceased for computing the compensation. Accordingly, this Court holds that the compensation be computed treating the income of the deceased to be Rs.4000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum. This Court finds that the claimant is also entitled to 25% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Accordingly, this Court awards 25% towards future prospect. This Court further

¶12

directs the tribunal to compute the compensation by applying multiplier of 13 in place of 5 considering the age of the deceased. This Court also finds that the award towards non-pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/is also on lower side. Since, the deceased was bachelor, therefore, the tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.30,000/towards non-pecuniary damages.

¶13

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not dependent upon the deceased, this Court holds that the insurance company has already honoured the award and, therefore, this plea is not open to be taken in appeal.

¶14

The appeal is partly allowed and the award of the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The Tribunal is directed to calculate the same in the light of observations made above. It is further provided that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the amount is paid.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.9.2022 SS

¶16

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.09.14 11:20:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bindeshwari Prasad v. Vinod Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeshwari Prasad v. Vinod Singh 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

M/S Sarmukh Goods Carriers Vs U.P.S.S.C.Ltd. and Another

M/S Kanpur Transport Corporation and Another Vs U.P.S.S.C.Ltd. and Another

M/S Sarmukh Goods CARIERSand Another Vs U.P.S.S.C.Ltd. and Another

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Others

U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam Thru K.P. and Another Vs Smt. Shobha Rastogi and Others

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Devendra and Others