Allahabad High Court
Babu Lal And Another vs Dinesh Kumar And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 760 of 2005
Appellant :- Babu Lal And Another
Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Syed Ali Murtaza
with
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 454 of 2005
Appellant :- New India Assurance Co Ltd
Respondent :- Babu Lal And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for claimants, Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned counsel for respondent in appeal No. 760 of 2005, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in connected appeal No. 454 of 2005 and perused the material brought on record.
Both these appeals have been arises out of same judgment and award dated 08.12.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Fatehpur in M.A.C.P. No. 176 of 2003, whereby awarding a sum of Rs.2,17,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation to the claimant.
The appeal of insurance company is taken up first, namely, F.A.F.O. No. 454 of 2005.
It is submitted that the deceased was 22 years of age, the tribunal did not follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 204 TAC Part No.1, page 3 which has held that if the decease was unmarried, the multiplier of 10 should have been applied. The tribunal has committed error in applying the multiplier of 17. The second ground is that the multiplier should have been as per the age of the claimants and not as of the deceased. It is further submitted that the claimants fail to prove any income of the deceased and, therefore, holding that he was earning Rs.1500/- per month is also erroneous. The oral testimonies could not have been relied by the tribunal. It is further submitted that the rate of interest granted requires interference as 6% rate of interest could not have been awarded in 2004.
As against this, Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for claimants has submitted that the claimants are also unhappy with the quantum awarded, namely Rs.2,17,000/- with 6% rate of interest and has filed appeal claiming enhancement and hence opposes this appeal.
In appeal preferred by the claimants, it is submitted that the income of the deceased in the year of accident, namely, 2003 his income should have been considered to be Rs.3,000/- + daily allowance of Rs.50, namely, Rs.4,500/- per month and to that 40% should have been added as future loss of income and Rs.30,000/- should have been added as filial consortium and the interest should have been 9%.
Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned counsel for insurance company submitted that income which has been considered is just and proper it has not been proved that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-, no cogent evidence is led. He has further submitted that the tribunal judgement granting multiplier of 17 requires to be disturbed, in view of the appeal preferred by the insurance company.
While accepting the submission of Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. that multiplier should be that of the parent would be contrary to the recent judgment of the Apex Court and now the Apex Court has held that multiplier which is of the claimants and the deceased whichever is higher should be granted. Hence the multiplier of 17 granted for the young boy of 22 years cannot be found fault with and I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Srivastava, Advocate that multiplier of 10 should be applied.
As far as the income is concerned, it should be considered to be Rs.4,500/- per month, namely, Rs.54,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 22 years of age, 40% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 which would come to Rs.54,000 + 21,600 = 75,600/- out of which 1/3rd requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.50,400/- rounded up to Rs.51,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that Rs.30,000/- should have been added as filial consortium. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.51,000 x 18 +30,000 = 9,48,000/-.
In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
Record and proceeding be sent back to the tribunal forthwith.
This Court is thankful to all the counsel for ably assisting this Court and getting very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Shubhankar
