Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022FAFO/930/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court decided two regarding compensation for a 2003 motor accident, dismissed the carrier's appeal against a Rs. 1.89 lakhs award, and allowed the claimants' appeal to enhance compensation. The court affirmed the tribunal's income assessment but directed application of a 2009 Apex Court multiplier of 18 and added 40% for future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the income assessment of Rs.20,000. Directed the Tribunal to apply a multiplier of 18 and award 40% for future prospects to the claimants. Enhanced compensation carries 6% interest.

U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam Thru K.P. and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 930 of 2006

¶4

Appellant :- U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam Thru K.P. And Another Respondent :- Smt. Shobha Rastogi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Saxena,Awadhesh Kumar Saxena

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Sharve Singh,S. Singh

¶6

AND

¶7

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1119 of 2006

¶8

Appellant :- Smt. Shobha Rastogi And Another Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sharve Singh,A.L. Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Awadhesh Kumar Saxena,Nripendra Mishra

¶9

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. Since, these two appeals are arising out of same accident and involves common issues, therefore, both the appeals are decided together with this common judgement.

¶12

3. The F.A.F.O. No.930 of 2006 has been preferred by the appellant-U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam challenging the award dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Bareilly whereby Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,89,000/alongwith 6% interest as compensation to the claimants/respondents and F.A.F.O. No.1119 of 2006 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation.

¶13

4. This Court first proceed to decide the F.A.F.O. No.930 of 2006.

¶14

5 . Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.20,000/- per annum without there being any evidence on record, accordingly, Tribunal ought to have computed the compensation taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum instead of Rs.20,000/-.

¶15

6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side inasmuch as Tribunal ought to have awarded 40% towards future prospect and further should have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 13 considering the age of the deceased

¶16

¶17

which was 22 years at the time of accident.

¶18

7. In such view of the fact, the appeal of U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam deserves to be dismissed and appeal of the claimants/appellants i.e. F.A.F.O. No.1119 of 2006 deserves to be allowed and compensation should be enhanced.

¶19

8. So far as the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and is not sustainable in law is misconceived for the reason that the accident had taken place in the year 2003, and therefore, Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.20,000/-. In such view of the fact, the contention of learned counsel for the U.P. Rajya Sarak Parivahan Nigam does not stand to merit.

¶20

9. Now coming the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121 that Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 for computing the compensation considering the age of the deceased and should have awarded 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 .

¶21

10 . In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court awards 40% towards future prospect and further directs the Tribunal to compute the compensation by applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 13.

¶22

11 . Thus, for the reasons given above, the F.A.F.O. No.930 of 2006 is dismissed and F.A.F.O. No.1119 of 2006 is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of payment.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.9.2022 Sattyarth

¶24

Digitally signed by SATTYARTH ANAND Date: 2022.09.10 15:19:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Bindeshwari Prasad Vs Vinod Singh and Another

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

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Devendra and Others