Partly allowed

Kaju Gupta v. the Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022FAFO/323/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, directing the tribunal to recalculate compensation based on a monthly income of Rs. 4,500 instead of Rs. 15,000 per annum, apply a multiplier of 17, and award specific damages for future prospects, diet/nutrition, and pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal directed to recalculate compensation with Rs. 4,500/month income, multiplier of 17, 40% future prospect, Rs. 50,000 for diet/nutrition, and Rs. 50,000 for pain and suffering.

Kaju Gupta Vs the Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 323 of 2012

¶3

Appellant :- Kaju Gupta Respondent :- The Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Mishra,O.P. Chaube Counsel for Respondent :- Mansoor Ahmad,Anubhav Chandra,Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

¶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 preferred against the award dated 31.10.2011 passed by MACT/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi in MACP No.250 of 2009 for enhancement of the award.

¶7

The Tribunal by order dated 31.10.2011 has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- alongwith 6% simple interest from the date of institution of claim petition for injuries suffered by claimant-appellant Kaju Gupta in an accident on 11.04.2009 with bus no.16A-4181.

¶8

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lower side. It is further contended that the accident had taken place in the year 2009, therefore, the tribunal has erred in law in computing compensation on the basis of notional income. He submits that in the year 2009, the minimum income of a labourer was not around Rs.150/- per day and as such, the income of

¶9

Rs.4500/- per month ought to have been taken by the tribunal. It is further contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospect whereas in view of judgement of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the future prospect on the income of the claimant shall be 40%. It is further contended that nothing has been awarded towards special diet and nutrition during the period, the claimantappellant was under treatment for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. It is further contended that nothing has been awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lower side and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. He submits that in absence of any evidence on record, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased, on the basis of notional income i.e. Rs.15,000/per annum. It is further contended that considering the age of the deceased, the tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17 instead of 18. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶11

The record reveals that the accident had taken place in the year 2009 and in the year 2009, it is a common knowledge that minimum income of a labourer was not less Rs.150/-

¶12

per day and, thus, the income of the deceased would be Rs.4500/- per month.

¶13

In such view of fact, this Court holds that the tribunal should have taken Rs.4500/- per month as income of the claimant-appellant for computing the compensation. The claimant is also entitled to 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . This Court awards 40% towards future prospect to the claimant-appellant.

¶14

This Court finds that nothing has been awarded towards special diet and nutrition during the period, the appellant was under treatment and accordingly, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant, this Court awards Rs.50,000/- towards special diet and nutrition. This Court also awards Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

¶15

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that considering the age of claimant-appellant, the tribunal should have applied multiplier of 17 instead of 18 has substance. Accordingly, this Court holds that enhanced amount of compensation shall be computed by applying multiplier of 17 instead of 18.

¶16

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

¶17

The Tribunal is directed to calculate the same in the light of observations made above. It is further provided that the

¶18

enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the amount is paid. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

The appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 SS

¶21

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.09.14 11:04:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaju Gupta v. the Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaju Gupta v. the Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. 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

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

Smt. Vidya Devi and Another Vs Surendra Singh and Others