Smt. Rajbala Meerut vs Mohd. Ikram And Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 1235 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1338 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Rajbala Meerut
 
Respondent :- Mohd. Ikram And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Y.S. Bohra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Chandra Naik
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for appellant-claimants and Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, Advocate for respondent- insurance company. None for the owner.

The parties are referred to as claimants and respondents hereinafter.

2. This appeal, at the behest of claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.05.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIth Additional District Judge, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 349 of 1999 awarding a sum of Rs.7,15,300/- with interest at the rate of 9%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered Rs.19,022/- per month but has deducted Rs.8,000/- towards family pension thereby granting the datum figure as Rs.11,022/- per month which is unjust, as the amount receivable under the family pension cannot be deducted is the mandate of Apex Court in AIR 1998 SC 3191, Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another. It is further submitted that the future income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least 40% as he had permanent job and he was 55 years of age and was Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. The deduction of 1/3rd of amount was also bad as he was survived by widow, two sons and one daughter. It is next submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be disturbed and the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased as he had a permanent job.

5. It is submitted that the deceased being 55 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 8 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. He has further relied on judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 for applying proper multiplier for deduction and for future prospects and for loss of estate, love and affection.

6. It is submitted by Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company that the income which has been assessed by the Tribunal cannot be more than that which is assessed by the Tribunal as the widow is receiving pension, the children were not dependent on him and they were all major, the multiplier would be 8 or 9 as he was 55 years 3 months and 16 days and, therefore, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (Supra), he has to consider in the age group of 56-60. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to been added as per the judgment in Pranay Setthi (Supra). It has not been shown by Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents that the said amount cannot be enhanced. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is submitted by Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents.

7. Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents has further submitted that the amount under the head of future income and interest requires to be granted as per Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and the interest cannot be paid as prayed for namely 9% and it should be at 7% on the enhanced amount and the amount which has already been awarded.

8. The submission of learned counsel for appellant that the amount of pension cannot be deducted has to be accepted in light of authoritative pronouncement of this High Court in 2016(4)T.A.C. 337 (All), Geeta Singh (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and the decision in 2014 ACJ 1430, Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others. Hence the said amount cannot be deducted as has been wrongly deducted by Tribunal. The non grant of future prospects is also bad in the eyes of law and requires to be added in light of the latest decision of the Apex Court. The multiplier also requires upward enhancement, in view of the judgment in Sarla Varma (Supra) and Pranay Setthi (Supra). Hence the submissions of counsels will have to be considered in light of these pronouncement.

9. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned and the record, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been considered at Rs.11,022/- per month to which 15% will have to be added which would mean, namely, Rs.1,33,264/- per year to which as the deceased was 55 years of age, 15% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Setthi (Supra) which would come to Rs.1,33,264 + Rs.19,990/- = Rs.1,53,254/- out of which 1/4th requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased as he was survived by four persons which would come to Rs.38,313/- rounded up to Rs.38,000/- and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family would be entitled to Rs.1,53,254/- - Rs.38,000/- which is equal to Rs.1,15,254/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 55-60 years, as his age was 55 years and 3 months it cannot be considered to 56 years as below 6 months it has to be go with earlier date and hence I am unable to accept the submission of Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents that the multiplier should be 8, the applicable multiplier would be 11 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Supra). Hence, the amount available to the family would be Rs.1,00,000 x 11 = Rs.11,00,000 (as he would be paying minimum income tax, being army man which is therefore roughly deducted at Rs.15,254/- per year). In addition to that Rs.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads.

10. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 11,70,000/-

11. I am unable to accept the submission of Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents as though the Rules are made applicable, the later decision of the Apex Court will govern the situation as 21 years have elapsed from the date, the Rules were framed and the Second Schedule has been held to be unworkable as per the decision of the Apex Court.

12. The rate of interest will have to be maintained and I am unable to accept the submission of Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decision of this High Court.

13. I am in agreement with Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondents that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending the rate of interest requires to be decreased.

14. 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 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.

15. This Court is thankful to both the parties for getting very old matter disposed of.

Order Date :- 14.3.2019

Shubhankar