Allahabad High Court
Ali Mohammad And Others vs Shri Narendr Akumar And Others on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 233 of 2000
Appellant :- Ali Mohammad And Others
Respondent :- Shri Narendr Akumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- ,Amit Kumar Singh,Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- ,Parv Agarwal
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of other respondents.
2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 3.12.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Aligarh in M.A.C.P. No.20 of 1995 (Ali Mohd. and others Vs. Narendra Kumar and others), by which the claim petition filed by claimants-appellants was partly allowed and compensation of Rs.1,36,400/- along with 12% interest had been awarded to the claimants-appellants on account of death of Shan Mohammad aged about 30 years.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimants-appellants that Claims Tribunal had erred in calculating the compensation accepting the notional income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month whereas the deceased was working as helper and had earned Rs.2,500/- per month but his income was disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & others vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.), has provided the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.36,000/- per annum). It is further submitted that age of the deceased was 30 years and the Claims Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier of 16 whereas the appropriate multiplier would be 17 as provided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677, for the age group of 26-30 years. Lastly, it is submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs.2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses, whereas the claimants-appellants are also entitle for 40% future prospects and Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 Insurance Company has submitted that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper and no ground for interference is made out but had not disputed the aforesaid legal position as argued by learned counsel for appellants.
5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :-
1. Monthly Income : = Rs.2,500/-
2. Annual Income : = Rs.2,500/- x 12 = Rs.30,000/-
3. Future prospects : (40%) = Rs.12,000/-
4. Total annual income : = Rs.30,000/- + Rs.12,000/- = Rs.42,000/-
5. Deduction towards
personal expenses (1/3) : = Rs.42,000/- - Rs.14,000 = Rs.28,000/-
6. Multiplier applicable (17) : = Rs.28,000/- x 17 = Rs.4,76,000/-
7. Non-pecuniary damages : = Rs. 70,000/-
Total : Rs.4,76,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 5,46,000/-
6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants/appellants is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,36,400/- to Rs.5,46,000/-. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/respondent no.3 is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.4,09,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition to the claimants/appellants, within two months from today.
7. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022
Kpy
