Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chand vs Shekhar Chand on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1125 of 1993
Appellant :- Ramesh Chand
Respondent :- Shekhar Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Asim Zulifiquar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 19.04.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No. 177 of 1998 awarding a sum of Rs.1,02,400/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. The accident took place on 04.11.1987. The deceased was 21 years old and was running a shop. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.1000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 16 and no amount granted towards non pecuniary damages. The Tribunal calculated the total compensation to be Rs.1,02,400/- payable by respondents at a rate of 12% p.a.
5. Mohd. Asim Zulifiquar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.18,00/- per month as he was running a shop and was survived by father, mother, brother and a sister. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident occurred when the 1939 Act was in vogue. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages.
6. As against this Sri Rajiv Ojha, learned counsel for respondent has contended that income of deceased does not require any upward enhancement in absence of any proof of deceased's income and further learned counsel for the respondent submits that the accident is of the year 1987 whereas the judgment of the Tribunal is prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and as the rules were not applicable in the State of U.P prior to year 2011, therefore, non addition of future loss of income is just and proper and has rightly been not granted by the tribunal.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, in the instant case, the deceased was 21 years old young man running a shop. This Court is in agreement with Sri Rajiv Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent that income of deceased does not require any upward enhancement in absence of any proof of deceased's income, hence considered his notional income to be Rs. 1400/- p.m to which in view of the judgement of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and other [1962 SCR(1) 929], 40% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income of deceased. The said judgement has been time and again followed more particularly the judgement of the Apex Court in
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and others (1994) 2 SCC 176 and the latest judgement in case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Trilok Chand, 1996 T.A.C. (2) 286 and recently post Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 judgement. The judgement in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also held that amount for future loss of income should be granted, 1/2 would be deductible, multiplier would be of 18 and Rs. 40,000/- would be under the head of non pecuniary damages which has not been granted by the tribunal.
8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Monthly Income: Rs. 14,00/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.560/-
iii. Total income : Rs.14,00/- +Rs. 560/- = Rs 19,60/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2nd towards personal expenses : Rs.980/-
v. Annual income : Rs.980 x 12 = Rs.11,760/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 18
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.11,760/- x 18 = Rs.2,11,680/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs 40,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.2,51,680/-
9. The tribunal has granted interest from the date of impleadment of Insurance Company. The claim petition was filed way back in the year 1988 when accidents were covered by Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Insurance Company was started with liability only from the date it was joined, the law on the point is otherwise. The reason being we cannot have dual standard so that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition but only interest would be liable from the date its impleadment. The view which the undersigned is taking gets support form the decision of the Apex Court reported in Urmila Pandey and others Vs. Khalil Ahmad and others reported in 1994 (4) SCC 204 which has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Aminaben Rahimbhai Kadiwala and others reported in (2001) 2 GLR 1108 equivalent to 2003 ACJ 1096. In that view of the matter the decisions cited by the tribunal would be eclipsed by these judgements. Therefore, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay interest from the date of filing of the petition till award was drawn. The grant of interest at 12% is modified on oral objections raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, hence the amount would carry 6% interest, the Insurance Company would recalculate the amount and deposit the same within 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited would be adjusted as that of 12%.
10. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
11. 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 6 % 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.
12. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As 10 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.
13. Record be sent back to the tribunal.
14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this very old matter decided.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022
PS
