Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.T.C. Gorakhpur vs Smt. Munnar And Others on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 19.4.2022
Delivered on 29.4.2022
Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 115 of 2001
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Gorakhpur
Respondent :- Smt. Munnar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh,Dinkar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- S.D.Tiwari,S.Tiwari
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Order on Cross Objection No.39745 of 2001
1. Heard Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Dinkar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. The appeal preferred by the appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. came to be withdrawn on 11.2.2019 and the same has attained finality.
2. This cross objection, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Basti (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.85 of 1995.
3. The accident took place on 20.5.1995. The deceased-Sitaram was 45 years of age and was an agriculturist. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.15000/- per year, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 12. The Tribunal has calculated the total compensation to be Rs.1,20,000/-, deducted 20% liability of the deceased and granted Rs.5000/- under non pecuniary heads.
4. By way of this cross objection the claimants has challenged the award on the ground that the deceased was not at all negligent and the amount awarded is on the lower side.
5. The question of contributory negligence decided by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, the reason being, the bus dashed with cyclist namely deceased who try to cross the road from left to right at the crossroad and, therefore, the Tribunal has considered negligence of the deceased to be 20% which is upheld.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased should be considered at least Rs.2000/- as he was an agriculturist and survived by his widow and three minor children to feed and in the light of the decision in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C Versus Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176, there should be addition of future loss of income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the multiplier granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be 15 looking to the age of the deceased and as he survived for few days, medical expenses of Rs.5000/- should be granted.
7. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the interest should be 15% per annum.
8. As against this, Sri Dinkar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. has submitted that the income decided by the Tribunal is just and proper as no proof of income of the deceased was produced on record. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that despite the fact that U.P.S.R.T.C. has withdrawn the appeal, the oral cross objection to the cross objection filed by the claimants requires to be heard and, therefore, interest of 15% cannot be granted as demanded by the claimants.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the income of the deceased even in the year of accident can be considered to be Rs.2,000/- per month, to which, 25% to be added towards future loss of income in view of the decision in Susamma Thomas (Supra). The deduction of 1/3rd is just and proper. The multiplier of 14 is granted as the deceased was in the age bracket of 41-45 years. Further, as the deceased survived for few days, there must be some medical expenses, hence, we grant Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards non pecuniary heads.
10. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income: Rs.2,000/-per month (Rs.24,000 per year)
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25 % namely Rs.6000/-
iii. Total income : Rs.24,000 + 6,000 = Rs.30,000/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : Rs.20,000/-
v. Multiplier applicable : 14
vi. Loss of dependency: Rs.20,000 x 14 = Rs.2,80,000/-
vii. Medical expenses : Rs.5,000/-
vii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000/-
viii. Total compensation : Rs.3,25,000/-
11. The additional amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited as the appeal preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. came to be withdrawn and the same has attained finality.
12. In view of the above, the cross objection is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. shall deposit the additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest as directed above.
13. 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 long period has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.
14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter decided.
Order Date :- 29.4.2022
DKS
