Partly allowed

Karan Maurya and 2 Others v. Mohd. Imran and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022FAFO/2736/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for additional evidence to contest the deceased's age in a motor accident claim. However, it allowed the appeal in part, quashing the Tribunal's income assessment of Rs. 15,000/- and enhanced total compensation to Rs. 6,70,000/- applying the Meena Devi guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Application for additional evidence rejected; compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,70,000/- to be paid by respondent insurance within two months.

Karan Maurya and 2 Others Vs Mohd. Imran and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2736 of 2017 Appellant :- Karan Maurya And 2 Others Respondent :- Mohd. Imran And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Singh,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Sahai,Mohd.Haseeb Uddin Siddiqui

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

(Civil Misc. Application No. 07 of 2021 (under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C.)

¶6

Learned tribunal upon consideration of the evidence in the record has found that on the date of the accident the age of the deceased was 14 years 11 months and 25 days old. The application for grant of additional evidence does not satisfy the prerequisite of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The appellants were fully aware of the case. The document was within their knowledge and reach. This application has been filed as an afterthought only to fill in the lacuna in the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal. The application is accordingly rejected.

¶7

Order Date :- 08.12.2022 Dhananjai

Court No. - 7

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶12

1. This appeal arises out of an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Allahabad¹ in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 579 of 2015 (Karan Maurya and others Vs. Mohd. Imran and others) dated 31.03.2017 by partly allowing the claim of the claimants. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned tribunal in the impugned judgment.

¶13

2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Karan Maurya.

¶14

3. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 28/29.04.2015, and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero bearing registration No. UP 70 CV-1203. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent no. 3 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. The deceased was 15 years of age at the time of his death.

¶15

1 hereinafter referred to as the “learned tribunal”

¶16

¶17

4. No evidence or material has been shown to this Court to establish perversity in the finding of the trial court. This Court accordingly holds that the finding of the tribunal in regard to the age of the deceased do not have any infirmity.

¶18

5. I see merit in the submission of Shri Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the appellants that the learned tribunal led into error by computing the income of the deceased. The learned tribunal determined the compensation after incorrectly fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

¶19

6. Resisting the appeal, Shri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the finding on the age returned by the tribunal is lawful and valid. Secondly there is no evidence in the record to show that the deceased was employed and earning in his livelihood.

¶20

7. P.W. 3 who was introduced to establish skills and income of the deceased is an unreliable witness. Contradictions in his testimonies are material in nature. As per his testimony, the deceased started working at the age of 10 years and established his own successful garage at the age of 12 years. This is nigh possible. The garage was situated at a remote part of a rural area and could not attract the volume of business as was alleged. The witness also made depositions on the state of business of the deceased on the basis of hearsay. This demolishes the credit of the witness in its entirety. No other evidence in regard to the income of the deceased has been produced.

¶21

¶22

8. Contention on behalf of the Insurance Company is upheld to that extent. The wages as claimed by claimants have not been proved.

¶23

9. However, I see merit in the submission of Shri Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the appellants that the minimum notional wage ought to have been Rs. 30,000/-. per annum.

¶24

10. Learned counsel for the insurance company could not contest the medical expenses which was proved by the claimants as per the applicable standards of evidence before the learned tribunal.

¶25

11 . The compensation to which the claimants/appellants are entitled is liable to be calculated in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others² .

¶26

12 . The compensation to which the claimants/appellants are entitled consistent with the Meena Devi (supra) is tabulated hereunder:

¶27

i. Date of Accident – 28/29.04.2015

¶28

ii. Name of Deceased iii. Age of the deceased

¶29

Karan Maurya

¶30

15 years

¶31

iv. Occupation of the Deceased – Motorcycle mechanic

¶32

v. Income of the deceased – 30,000/- per annum

¶33

vi. Name, Age and Relationship of Claimants with the deceased:

¶34

Sr. No.	Name		Age	Relation
1.		Chunni Lal	50	Father
2.		Asha Devi	46	Mother

¶35

vii. Computation of Compensation

¶36

Sr.	Heads	Amount (in Rupees)

¶37

2 2022 (4) TAC 371

¶38

¶39

No.
1.	Annual Income	30,000/-
2.	Multiplier	15
3.	Annual loss of dependancy	15x30000=4,50,000
4.	Conventional head	50,000
5.	Medical Expenses	1,70,000
6.	Total Compensation	6,70,000/-
7.	Interest	7%

¶40

13. In the wake of preceding discussion this Court finds that the total compensation to which the appellants/claimants are entitled is Rs. 6,70,000/-. The amount shall be paid by the respondent insurance company within a period of two months. The enhanced amount shall carry interest of 7% per annum from the date of accident till it is disbursed to the claimants.

¶41

14. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶42

Order Date :- 08.12.2022 Dhananjai

¶43

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan Maurya and 2 Others v. Mohd. Imran and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Maurya and 2 Others v. Mohd. Imran and 2 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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kunti Devi and 3 Others

Mukesh Chandra Vs Mohammad Ovais Iqbal Khan and 7 Others

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita and 7 Others

Commitee of Management through Its Manager Ankit Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamran Vs State of U.P.