Partly allowed

Smt. Norin v. Digvijai Tripathi and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023FAFO/1061/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court enhanced compensation awarded for the death of a husband. The Court increased the multiplier to 17 based on the deceased's age (25-30 years) and adjusted annual income to Rs. 3000. Total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 6,04,600 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the Tribunal modified to award Rs. 6,04,600 with 9% interest, payable within 12 weeks.

Smt. Norin Vs Digvijai Tripathi and Another — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1061 of 1998

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Norin Respondent :- Digvijai Tripathi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Shri V. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, that the Motor Accidental Claim Tribunal awarded lump-sum amount for the death of the husband who was 30 years of age and was an agriculturist. The widow of the deceased has come before this Court challenging the judgement and order/award dated 30.07.1998 passed by Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T. Shahjahanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 107 of 1997 (Smt. Norin Vs. Digvijai Tripathi and Another) who was awarded Rs. 75,000 with 12% interest.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be considered at least Rs.3000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the multiplier granted by the Tribunal and amount under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side and are required to be enhanced.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant. This Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier of 17 should be granted in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC) as the deceased was in the age bracket of 25-30 years . The deceased was married and was survived by his wife and a child of one and half years of age whom the mother have to nurture, hence, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3. As far as amount under non-pecuniary heads is concerned, the appellant would be entitled to get Rs.30,000/-.

¶9

Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:

¶10

i. Annual Income: Rs.3000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/-

¶11

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.14,400/-

¶12

iii. Total income : Rs.36,000 + 14,400 = Rs.50,400/-

¶13

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.33,800/-

¶14

v. Multiplier applicable : 17

¶15

vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.37,800 x 17 = Rs.5,74,600/-

¶16

vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs. 30,000/-

¶17

viii. Total compensation : Rs.6,04,600/-

¶18

As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned , the claimants would be entitled to 9% rate of interest on the enhanced compensation. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal on originally awarded amount is reworked to 9% from 12%.

¶19

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed . Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited as this matter is of 15.06.1996.

¶20

The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

¶21

The respondents have not appeared before this Court for a long period, despite service of notice, as this matter taken up ex-parte, this appeal is partly allowed.

¶22

This Court appreciates Shri V. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant for getting this very old matter disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Mohit/Imtiyaz

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Norin v. Digvijai Tripathi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Norin v. Digvijai Tripathi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Devi Vs R.K. Tripathi

U.P. Power Corporation and Another Vs Smt. Aktari Begum

Sheo Nath Yadav and Another Vs Smt.Muratia Devi

Smt Sadapyari and Ors. Vs Rajes Kumar and Another

Smt. Akhtari Begum Vs Ram Kumar Trivedi and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C.V.S. Vs Smt. Sherifan