Deepak And Another vs Uttar Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10064 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 37 
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 42 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- Deepak And Another
 
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Rai,Neelam Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. There is nobody to oppose the appeal though U.P.S.R.T.C. and the owner have been sent notices and duly served. It is also brought to our notice that U.P.S.R.T.C. had also preferred an appeal.

3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 08.11.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.86 of 2016.

4. As far as the appeal is concerned, all other aspects except the compensation awarded, has attained finality. It is the appeal filed by claimants. The issue of negligence has been decided in favour of the claimants and that issue is not raised in this appeal and the issue that is required to be decided is compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income despite the law provided for the same.

5. By way of this appeal, the claimants have lost a young son (student) studying in class VIII. The Tribunal has considered his notional income to be Rs. 2400/- per month. The Tribunal relied on the IInd schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, did not grant any amount towards future loss of income. It is submitted by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the appellants that as per Rules of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011, which is recently interpreted by the Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Shukla and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 decided on 06.08.2021 and held that the rules are beneficial and given effect. In our view, the Tribunal has not granted any amount though the rules provides, which reads as follows:-

"220A. Determination of compensation. (1) The multiplier for  determination of loss of income payable as compensation in all the claims cases shall be applied as per Second Schedule provided in the Act.

(2((i) The deduction towards personal expenses of a deceased unmarried shall be 50% where the family of a bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, the deduction shall be 1/3.

(3) The future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased."

6. For the purpose of future prospects of the deceased it shall be added in actual salary and or the minimum wages of the deceased, as under these rules came into force before deciding the matter, therefore, 50% of the salary and or minimum wages will have to be added, which would mean that the order of the Tribunal requires to be modified. It is further submitted by Sri Rai that the multiplier of 15 granted by the Tribunal has to be 18. It is next submitted that the Tribunal has granted Rs. 9000/- towards funeral purposes whereas no amount under non-pecuniary damages for the parents has granted. It is submitted by Sri Rai that the bus of the U.P.S.R.T.C. was not insured.

7. It is contended that as far as the interest is concerned though the rules specify 7% as rate of interest and less and as far as the amount under non-pecuniary head is concerned, the judgment of Sarla Verma and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 would be applicable. Dictation The deceased was survived by his parents therefore, 1/2 is ordered to be deducted for personal expenses. The multiplier for the death of boy below the age of 14 is 15 hence, we maintain the same. As far as the compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of future prospects and consortium are concerned, we award Rs. 50,000/- with 10% increase for three years. The rate of interest would be 7.5%.

8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs.6,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.2400/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 6,000 + 2400 = Rs. 8400/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 : Rs. 4200/- (rounded up)

v. Annual income : Rs.4200 x 12 = Rs. 50,400/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 15

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.50400 x 15 = Rs.7,56,000/-

viii. Amount under filial consortium and other non pecuniary heads : Rs. 85,000/-

x. Total compensation : Rs. 8,41,000/-

9. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."

10. 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 respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.

11. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants/claimants are neither illiterate nor rustic villagers.

12. Record, if any be sent back to the Tribunal.

Order Date :- 11.8.2021

AK Pandey