Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Suman Devi And Others on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3263 of 2008
Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
Respondent :- Smt. Suman Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- D.K. Srivastava,B.B. Jauhari,Nripendra Mishra,Samir Sharma
with
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3490 of 2008
Appellant :- Smt. Suman Devi And Others
Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Gupta,Suyash Agarwal
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Order in FAFO No. 3263 of 2008.
Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent.
These appeals have been filed respectively by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 11.8.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Shahjahanpur in MACP No. 51 of 2007.
Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that when appeal was filed on the grounds which have been taken in this appeal namely that bus was plying under the control of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) under contract and therefore liability to pay compensation will be that of UPSRTC and not of the insurer.
In the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of UPSRTC Vs. Kulsum & Ors as reported in (2011) 8 SCC 142, wherein it has been held that there is no legal imbargo in owner being indemnified by the Corporation and there is apparently no escape to the insurance company to avoid its liability. The appeal is dismissed.
Order in FAFO No. 3490 of 2008
Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Insurance Company and Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle.
Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that there are four dependents, therefore, in place of 1/3rd, 1/4th deduction is to be made. Similarly under the head of future prospects since age of the deceased was 36-years and he was a salaried employee working as a police constable 50% amount is to be added towards future prospects in the light of the law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Multiplier of 15 will be applicable as per law laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Over and above, this claimant will be entitled to payment of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary benefits.
When income of the deceased as accepted to be Rs. 8657/- per month is taken and 50% is added towards future prospects then monthly depedency comes out to Rs. 12985.50/- per month or Rs. 1,55,826/- per year. When 1/4th is deducted towards income spent by the deceased on self then net dependency will come to Rs. 1,16,869.50 per year, when multiplier of 15 is applied as per law laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 17,53,42.50 (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs fifty thousand forty two and fifty paise). Over and above which claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- taking total compensation to Rs. 18,23,42/- against compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 10,12,700/-. Thus there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs.8,10,342.00 (Rupees eight lakhs ten thousand three hundred and forty) to which claimant will be entitled. Other terms and conditions of the award including rate of interest will be applicable on enhanced compensation also shall remain intact.
In above terms, FAFO No. 3490 of 2008 is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
S.K.S.
