Partly allowed

Mohanlal and Another v. Talib and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2022FAFO/305/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerned the enhancement of compensation for the death of Bal Govind in a motor vehicle accident. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award by increasing the deceased's monthly income from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 6,000, applying a multiplier of 18 instead of 17, and hiking funeral and loss of estate expenses to Rs. 15,000 each, alongside granting 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation computed on income of Rs. 6,000/month, multiplier of 18; funeral losses and loss of estate fixed at Rs. 15,000 each; award modified with 6% interest.

Mohanlal and Another Vs Talib and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 305 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Mohanlal And Another Respondent :- Talib And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ganesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimantsappellants for enhancement of compensation for the death of one Bal Govind who died in an accident on 27.01.2019 in car no. UP-65-CW-7575 and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month.

¶7

It is submitted that even if, there was no proof of income and considering the fact that deceased was the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.). It is further contended that the age of the deceased was 23 years, therefore, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 17 in computing the compensation. It is further urged that the award of the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively is not just and proper, inasmuch as the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. It is contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed and compensation needs to be enhanced.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the facts of the present case as there was no evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly held the income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and as such it does not require any interfere by this Court.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

¶10

The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) has held the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month in respect to the accident which had occurred

¶11

in December, 2013, therefore, considering the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) this Court finds that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation. Accordingly, this Court holds that the compensation shall be computed by taking the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000//- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum.

¶12

Further, this Court finds that, considering the age of the deceased which was 23 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 17 and further should have given Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas Tribunal has awarded holding Rs. 5,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate which is on lower side. Accordingly, this Court holds that the compensation shall be computed by applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 17. This Court also awards Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and towards loss of estate in place of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶13

For the reason given above, the appeal is partly allowed . The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the payment of award.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Vikram

¶15

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.09.28 14:11:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohanlal and Another v. Talib and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal and Another v. Talib 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kiran Devi Vs Junaid Khan and Another

Shamsuddin Ahmad Vs U.P.Sunni Central Board of Waqfs

Dina Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Lalji Prasad and 2 Others Vs Panjab National Bank Circle Office and 2 Others

Munib Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Sri Sai Eint Udyog Vs Vinay Prakash and 18 Others