Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Smt. Ram Shree and Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2024/133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal. The court rejected arguments challenging the deceased's age-based multiplier and the finding regarding the direction of the accident impact, holding the Tribunal's decision was in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal was dismissed; statutory deposit remitted to the Tribunal for payment to claimants.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35001

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 133 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Respondent :- Smt. Ram Shree And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Chandra,Nazia Khatoon

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Saurabh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

This first appeal from order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act- 1988 against the judgment and award dated 19.02.2024 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1075 of 2019 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao by means of which the claim petition has been partly allowed and an amount of Rs.8,29,420/- has been awarded alongwith interest @ 7% per annum and the appellant insurance company has been directed to make the payment of the awarded amount.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the deceased as per postmortem report has been accepted as 40 years at the time of accident, whereas his wife, who had appeared in evidence, had stated that he was elder than her and the age of the wife of the deceased was 40 years, therefore he would have been more than 40 years of age, therefore the multiplier of 15 has wrongly and illegally been applied at the age of 40 years, whereas it should have been applied according to the age range of 41-45 i.e. treating him of at least 41 years of age. He further submits that the accident was a head on collision as per the site plan which was produced before the tribunal, a copy of which has been placed on record but the learned tribunal has wrongly and illegally held that the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero hit the deceased from the back side.

¶9

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

¶10

In regard to the accident held on 23.05.2018 at HardoiUnnao road near Nasirpur Bhikhan, in which the deceased Guru Prasad, who was going on a bicycle from his village- Sitaram Kheda to Bangarmau, was hit by the Bolero No.U.P-35-T-2736 from the back side. While considering the first issue, the

¶11

tribunal after considering the evidence of the eye witness PW-2 Anup Kumar has recorded a finding that the deceased was hit by the Bolero from the back side. The site plan shows the way of going of vehicles and does not indicate that it was a head on collision because both the vehicles were going from Hardoi Road to Bilhore Road, therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that it was a head on collision is misconceived and not tenable.

¶12

The age of the deceased has been found 40 years in the postmortem. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the wife of the deceased was of 40 years of age and since she has deposed that her husband was elder than her, therefore he should have been at least 41 years of age is also misconceived and not tenable because merely his wife has stated that he was elder than her, it can not be said that he must have attained the age of 41 years. Both may be of 40 years of age which would be from 40 to the completion of 41 years of age.

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi: (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has held that as far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. The relevant paragraph 42 is extracted here-in-below :-

¶14

"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

¶15

The multiplier of 15 has been applied on the age range from 36 to 40 years, therefore this Court is of the view that the multiplier of 15 has rightly and in accordance with law has been applied treating the age of deceased 40 years.

¶16

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the learned tribunal has rightly and in accordance with law partly allowed the claim petition after considering the pleadings and material on record and also applying the law correctly. There is no illegality or infirmity in it, which may call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is misconceived and dismissed accordingly.

¶17

The money deposited under statutory deposit before this Court shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith and in any case within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be adjusted towards the payment to be made to the claimant-respondents in terms of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2024.

¶18

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Haseen U.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Smt. Ram Shree and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager v. Smt. Ram Shree 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Farzana and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.Lko.and Ors.

Anita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Monu Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko.

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs Buddhu Yadav

Adalat Vs Commercial Court Faizabad and Ors.

Manohar and Others Vs Madaru and Others