Hem Raj And Others vs U.P.S.R.T.C.
2022 Latest Caselaw 544 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 478 of 2006
 

 
Appellant :- Hem Raj And Others
 
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Sri Diwan Sawla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

This first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 17.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No.47 of 2003 (Hemraj & others vs. UPSRTC) awarding compensation of Rs.1,77,500/- alongwith 6% interest to the claimants on account of death of Chhedi Lal aged about 35 years.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that the Claim Tribunal has erred in accepting notional income of Rs.15000/- 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 as Rs.3000/- per month. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.3000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.2500/- for loss of estate have been awarded, whereas claimants are also entitled to 40% future prospects and Rs.30,000/- for non-pecuniary expenses 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. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that the Claim Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses whereas there were six dependents on the income of deceased as such, deduction should be 1/4th in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.).

On the other hand, learned counsel for UPSRTC submitted that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident and the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of '17' whereas as per law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma(supra), appropriate multiplier would be '16' for the age group from 31-35 years.

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reassessed as below:-

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(1/4th) = Rs.50,400/- - Rs.12,600/- =Rs.37,800/-

6) Multiplier applicable (16) =Rs.37,800/- x 16 = 6,04,800/-

7) Non-pecuniary damages =Rs.30,000/-

Total = Rs.6,04,800/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.6,34,800/-

In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,77,500/- to Rs.6,34,800/-. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation-respondent is directed to deposit enhanced amount Rs.4,57,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition, within two months from today before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire deposited amount without furnishing any surety.

Order Date :- 6.4.2022

P.P.