Partly allowed

Smt. Ram Mruti and Others v. Shri Govind Sharma and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022FAFO/915/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award due to composite negligence and incorrect deductions. Compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1,02,500 to Rs. 4,63,750, with the insurer directed to pay the enhanced difference.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,63,750; Insurer to pay Rs. 3,61,250 plus interest at 6% within two months.

Smt. Ram Mruti and Others Vs Shri Govind Sharma and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 915 of 1999

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Ram Murti And Others Respondent :- Shri Govind Sharma And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Sinha

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for claimantsappellants and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.2. No one is present on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶6

This first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 13.5.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Xth Additional District Judge, Agra in M.A.C.P. No.280 of 1994 (Smt. Ram Murti and others vs. Sri Govind Sharma and another) awarding compensation of Rs.1,02,500/- alongwith 10% interest in favour of claimants-appellants on account of death of Satya Prakash @ Prakash aged about 42 years in a road accident which was occurred on 3.5.1994.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly, the deceased was travelling in a tractor which was dashed by the offending truck. The Claim Tribunal while deciding issue no. 2 has recorded the finding that drivers of both the vehicles were equally rash and negligent and were responsible for the accident. The Claim Tribunal has deducted 50% compensation on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of composite negligence and the Claim Tribunal had erred in deducting 50% compensation on account of contributory negligence of driver of tractor. He placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in 2015(2)TAC, 677(S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that in the case of composite negligence, it is open for the claimants to claim compensation either from owner or insurer of one vehicle or from both the vehicles and as such, the deduction towards contributory negligence is incorrect. It is further submitted that the Claim Tribunal had also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas there were four dependents on the income of the deceased and as such, the deduction should be 1/4 in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road

¶8

Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.) . It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs.5000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium whereas the claimants are also entitled for 25% future prospects and Rs.70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673.

¶9

On the other hand, Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that Claim Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 15 accepting the age of the deceased as 42 years whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has provided multiplier of 14 for the age group of 41-45 years. Learned counsel for respondent no.2Insurance Company has further submitted that the Claim Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has recorded the finding that drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent and responsible for the accident in the ratio of 50-50% and as such, respondent no.2- Insurance Company may be permitted to recover 50% amount of compensation from owner or insurance Company of the tractor in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra).

¶10

Considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

So far as deduction towards contributory negligence is concerned, the Claim Tribunal had committed illegality in deducting 50% on account of contributory negligence of tractor driver, whereas it was a case of composite negligence, as the deceased was travelling in tractor. So far as deduction towards personal expense is concerned, it should be 1/4 and claimants are also entitled for 25% future prospects and Rs.70,000/towards non-pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶12

In view of above, the compensation awarded by the Claim Tribunal is reassessed as below:-

¶13

1. Annual Income= Rs.30,000/-

¶14

1. Future prospects (25%) = Rs.7,500/-

¶15

1. Total annual income = Rs.30,000/- + Rs.7,500/- =Rs.37,500/-

¶16

1. Deduction towards

¶17

personal expenses(1/4th) = Rs.37,500/- - Rs.9,375/- =Rs.28,125/-

¶18

Multiplier applicable (14) =Rs.28,125/- x 14= Rs.3,93,750/-

¶19

Non-pecuniary damages =Rs.70,000/-

¶20

Total = Rs.3,93,750/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.4,63,750/-

¶21

In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,02,500/- to Rs.4,63,750/-. The respondent No.2- National Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.3,61,250/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of claim petition to the claimantsappellants, within two months from today.

¶22

It is open for the respondent no.2/Insurer of truck to initiate appropriate proceeding to recover 50% amount of compensation from owner/insurer of the tractor.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.9.2022 P.P.

¶24

Digitally signed by POONAM PATEL Date: 2022.09.14 16:28:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Ram Mruti and Others v. Shri Govind Sharma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ram Mruti and Others v. Shri Govind Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Deva Nand and Ors.

Smt. Kastoori Devi and Others Vs Sharifuddin and Others

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sundari Devi and Others

Syeed Ahamad Vs Mahima Nandan Tripathi

Krishan Pal and Another Vs Bhagwati Prasad and Another

Mukut Singh Vs Sri Satish Mehra and Others