Allahabad High Court
Anwar Ahmad And 4 Ors. vs Uttarakhand Transport ... on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 689 of 2016
Appellant :- Anwar Ahmad And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- Uttarakhand Transport Corporation And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Anand Gaur,Siddarth Jaiswal
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Ref: Civil Misc. Restoration Application along with Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay is minimal. Cause shown in the affidavits filed in support of the applications is sufficient.
3. Delay is condoned.
4. The order dated 13.3.2018 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.
5. Applications are disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
Ram Murti
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 689 of 2016
Appellant :- Anwar Ahmad And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- Uttarakhand Transport Corporation And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Anand Gaur,Siddarth Jaiswal
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Delay having been condoned, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today itself that the Insurance Company may not have to bear burden of higher rate of interest and prolonging of the matter would be detriment to the interest of the appellants.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 19.12.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Moradabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.537 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.3,15,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 21 years of age survived by his parents and brothers and sister who were minor at the time of accident. He was JCB mechanic. In the year 2014, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, which is on the lower side. Further the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income. Multiplier of 17 was applied which should be 18. Further amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages has been awarded on lower side. Further rate of interest has been considered to be 7% which should be 9%. Thus, quantum of compensation is required to be enhanced.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently objected the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court is of the view that even in the year 2014, the income of the JCB mechnic can be assessed to be Rs.4,000/- to which as the deceased was self employed and below age of 40 years, 40% has to be added under the head of future prospect in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. Further as the deceased was in age bracket of 21-25, multiplier of 18 has to be applied. Further Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head of non pecuniary damages.
7. 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.4,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.1600/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 4,000 + 1600 = Rs.5,600/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 : Rs.1400/-
v. Annual income : Rs.1400 x 12 = Rs.16,800/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 18
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.16800 x 18 = Rs.3,02,400/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000/-
ix. Total compensation : 3,42,400/-
8. 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."
9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard finally.
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 along with additional 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 filing of the appeal and thereafter 4% till entire amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
11. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that the matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021/Ram Murti
