Dismissed

Shakuntala Devi and Another v. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2017AO/312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal arising from a motor accident death claim, the appellant challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court rejected the argument for enhancement based on income tax returns, holding the deceased's income was unstable. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was upheld. Leave to file Civil Revision (LCR) letters was sent back.

Shakuntala Devi and Another Vs Sriram General Insurance… — Insurance | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal from Order No. 312 of 2016

¶3

Shakuntala Devi & Another

¶4

…. Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sriram General Insurance Company Limited & Others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellants. None turns up on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶10

None turns up on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient service. So, this court has rendered hearing to the learned counsel of the appellant/claimant, who is primarily the mother of the deceased Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who has crossed now 60 years of age.

¶11

Accident occurred on 27.4.2013 when the deceased Pankaj, aged about 29 years, was going as a pillion rider on motorcycle no. 07-AV-1317, which was being driven by his friend Chhote Lal. From the rear side it was hit by the truck no. UP-07E-3737. Both motorcycle borne youths were injured and Mr. Pankaj breathed his last in the hospital on the same day.

¶12

The claim petition was instituted by his mother and younger brother demanding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,10,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs ten thousand only), whereagainst, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 9,90,000/- (Rupees nine lakh ninety thousand only) only.

¶13

¶14

The learned counsel of the appellant has drawn the attention of this court that the income tax return of the deceased Pankaj in the financial year 2010-11 was Rs. 1,10,000/- and such return in the financial year 201112 was to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/-. So, atleast the average of such return would have been taken as a base income for evaluating the compensation.

¶15

I do not agree with such contention because it has been averred that deceased Mr. Pankaj used to take contracts to earn his livelihood. Such was the purely provisional and unstable work. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that he must have augmented his income in all the years to come. His base income has been taken much above than the notional income viz. Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month.

¶16

I think the learned Tribunal has already been liberal in evaluating the compensation. Not much difference is there in the amount as claimed and as granted.

¶17

There is no force in this appeal. It is thus dismissed.

¶18

LCR be sent back.

¶19

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 05.7.2017

¶20

Pooja

Shakuntala Devi and Another v. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Devi and Another v. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Rabeeca Washington and Others

Bishan Singh Bhandari Vs Dharam Singh and Others

Smt Shalni Vs Anil Kumar

Smt Heena Singh Vs Paramveer Singh

Smt Priyanka Mandal Vs Subrato Mandal

Km. Chandni Tikku Vs Samit Tikku