Allahabad High Court
Gulab Chandra vs Kunwar Ji And Others on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3273 of 2018
Appellant :- Gulab Chandra
Respondent :- Kunwar Ji And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar,Mangala Prasad Tripathi,Suresh Chandra Dwivedi
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard Ms. Deepali Srivastava Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Vivek Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2/Oriental Insurance Company Limited and perused the record.
2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kaushambi in M.A.C.P. No.57 of 2002 (Gulab Chandra Vs. Kunwar Ji and another), by which compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- along with 6% interest had been awarded to the claimant-appellant on account of death of Vinod Kumar aged about 18 years.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimant-appellant that Claims Tribunal had erred in calculating the compensation accepting the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum whereas 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 Claims Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier of 15 on the age of claimant, who is father of the deceased and law has now been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677, that age of the deceased is relevant for choosing the multiplier and since the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards future prospects and only Rs.2,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses whereas the claimant is entitle for 40% future prospects and Rs.30,000/- 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.2 Insurance Company has submitted that admittedly the deceased was unmarried and the claimant is father of the deceased and as such the Claims Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) the deduction would be 1/2.
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.3,000/-
2. Annual Income : = Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/-
3. Future prospects : (40%) = Rs.14,400/-
4. Total annual income : = Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- = Rs.50,400/-
5. Deduction towards
personal expenses (1/2) : = Rs.50,400/- - Rs.25,200 = Rs.25,200/-
6. Multiplier applicable (18) : = Rs.25,200/- x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-
7. Non-pecuniary damages : = Rs. 30,000/-
Total : Rs.4,53,600/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 4,83,600/-
6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimant is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,52,000/- to Rs.4,83,600/-. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/respondent no.2 is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.3,31,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition to the claimant/appellant, within two months from today.
7. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
Kpy
