Allahabad High Court
Kripa Shankar Singh vs Rudra Pratap Singh And Others on 26 March, 2019
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 41
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 887 of 2018
Appellant :- Kripa Shankar Singh
Respondent :- Rudra Pratap Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajai Singh,Amit Kumar Singh,Vipin Chandra Dixit
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
The claimant/appellant being dissatisfied with the quantification of compensation has preferred the present present for enhancement.
Appellant/claimant instituted the claim petition praying for compensation of Rs.10 lac for the death of his son Shani Kumar who died in an accident on 08.11.2008 with bus no.UP62T/0927. It was stated that the deceased was student of BBA in Uptech, Sigra, Varanasi and after completing education, he would have earned Rs.4500/- per month.
The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount and by applying the multiplier of 11, awarded Rs.1,32,000/- towards loss of income. Besides above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,36,500/- alongwith 6% interest as compensation to the claimant appellant.
Challenging the quantification of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is settled in law that multiplier corresponding the age of the deceased should be applied for computing compensation and, therefore, Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11 corresponding to the age of parents of the deceased instead of 18 corresponding to the age of deceased. He further contends that deceased was bachelor and, therefore, Tribunal should have deducted half towards personal expenses of the deceased. He further submits that deceased was self employed and considering the age of the deceased, claimant/appellant is entitled to 40% towards future prospect. He further submits that award of Rs.4500/- towards conventional heads is also inadequate and claimant/appellant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads. Lastly, he contends that claimant/appellant is father of the deceased and is entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others 2018(4) T.A.C. 345 (SC.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Tribunal has held the income of the deceased on the basis of evidence on record and compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case is just and proper. He submits that claimant/appellant has failed to make out any case for enhancement of compensation.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of wrong application of multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses has substance in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121 and accordingly, it is provided that compensation shall be computed by applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 11 and by deducting half towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 2/3rd.
The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 has held that claimants are entitled to future prospect in case of self employed person and accordingly, this Court awards 40% towards future prospect to the claimant/appellant on the income of the deceased.
This Court finds that the award of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses is not adequate and accordingly, the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. This Court further awards Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate instead of Rs.2500/- in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others(supra).
Lastly, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of loss of consortium to the claimant/appellant has also substance in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), accordingly, this Court awards Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant/appellant.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimant/appellant within a period of two months. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.3.2019
S.Sharma
