Partly allowed

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Aliganj Lko.Thro.Its R.M. v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Special Judge Ec Act and Ors.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024FAFO/408/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's award. The Tribunal erred by applying a multiplier of 18 for a deceased aged 28 years. The Court directed application of the correct multiplier of 17 as per Supreme Court precedent, recalculating compensation payable to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2013 were modified to apply a multiplier of 17 instead of 18, recalculating compensation for the widow and father of the deceased. A lower net sum was grant

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Aliganj… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 408 of 2013

¶3

Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd.Aliganj Lko.Thro.Its R.M. Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Special Judge Ec Act And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- K.C.Nigam,Anil Kr. Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar,Shobhit Nigam,Sobhit Nigam

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shobhit Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant-respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by efflux of time all the grounds taken by the appellant have been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the only ground is that the multiplier of 17 should have been applied at the age of 28 of the deceased in place of 18 applied by tribunal in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Another; AIR 2009 SC 3104 .

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2013 may be modified accordingly after applying multiplier of 17 in place of 18.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

¶10

The claim petition filed by the claimant-respondents has been allowed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which there is no dispute between the parties at this stage except that the multiplier applied by the tribunal on the age of deceased, which was 28 years at the time of accident, the tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Another (Supra) has held that multiplier of 17 is to be applied in the age group of 26 to 30 years. Thus, this Court is of the view that the tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 18, therefore, the multiplier of 17 is to be applied according to the age of deceased i.e. 28 years at the time of accident. Thus, the impugned judgment and award is

¶11

liable to be modified and the compensation is to be calculated after applying the multiplier of 17 on the annual income of Rs.2,61,750/- after 1/3 deduction from the monthly income of Rs.43,658/- and income tax as deducted in the impugned judgment and award. After applying the multiplier of 18 on the so annual income arrived of Rs.Rs.2,61,750/-, the total compensation payable comes to Rs.44,49,750/-. Accordingly, the claimant-respondent no.2 Smt. Parul Kumar, who is widow of the deceased shall get Rs.22,24,875/- in place of Rs.23,55,750/- alongwith other amounts allowed by the tribunal and the claimant-respondent no.3 Dr. Ramji Srivastava, who is the father of the deceased shall get Rs.22,24,875/- in place of Rs.23,55,750/-. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special Judge E.C. Act, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.119/2009; Smt. Parul Kumar & Another Vs. N.Shankracharyi & Others, stands modified accordingly.

¶12

The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶13

The statutory amount and any other amount deposited before this court under any order of this court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within four weeks from today to be adjusted in the payments to be made to the claimant-respondents.

¶14

The lower court record shall also be sent back to the concerned Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within the aforesaid period.

¶15

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Haseen U.

¶16

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

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Aliganj Lko.Thro.Its R.M. v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Special Judge Ec Act and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Aliganj Lko.Thro.Its R.M. v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Special Judge Ec Act and Ors.

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

Sadiq Ali and Another Vs Ram Garibe and 2 Others

Nanke @ Dhani Ram vs Shri Om Prakash, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Ikauna Dist Shravasti

Smt. Prem Kumari and Others vs Pawan Kumar Gangwar, Secy. Lko. Development Authority Lko. and Another

Qamar Ahmad and Another Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Divisional Manager,Divisional OFFICE-2, Lko. and 2 Others

Rudrabhan Singh vs Sri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Edu. Ayodhya

Kumari Rupali @ Rupali Balmiki vs Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda