Smt. Krishna Devi vs Mohd. Imran And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10708 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2917 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Krishna Devi
 
Respondent :- Mohd. Imran And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar,Zulfeqar Ali
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd.Haseeb Uddin Siddiqui
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Sri Zulfeqar Ali, for the appellant and Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for respondent no. 3, i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow.

This is a claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad through its judgment and award dated 10.5.2017 passed in Motor Accident Compensation Case No. 662 of 2015 (Smt. Krishna Devi vs. Mohd. Imran & Ors).

The case of the claimant - appellant is that her son Manish Dubey died due to injuries caused in an accident that took place in the night of 28/29.4.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. U.P. 70 C.V. / 1203. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- alleging that the deceased - Manish Dubey worked as a Painter and earned Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of his death.

The vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 3, i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The respondent no. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no. 2 is the driver of the offending vehicle.

The Tribunal after recording a finding that Manish Dubey (the deceased) was injured in the accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and, consequently, died due to the injuries suffered in the accident and also after holding that the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 and the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of accident, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- to the claimant. The appeal has been filed claiming higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal.

As no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the respondents in the present case, therefore, the Court is not examining the findings of the Tribunal on Issues regarding factum of accident and the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle for the compensation payable to the claimant.

The Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 20 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not been able to prove that the deceased, at the time of accident, earned Rs.10,000/- per month and, therefore, computed compensation on the notional income of the deceased taking it to be Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal added 50% as future prospects in the notional income of the deceased and after applying a multiplier of 17 and after deducting 50% as personal expenses of the deceased, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,59,000/- as pecuniary damages to the claimant. The Tribunal further awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- with a simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the compensation amount.

For reasons to be stated subsequently, the claimant is entitled for a higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal.

The findings of the Tribunal that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of accident has not been challenged by either of the parties, therefore, compensation has to be calculated taking the deceased to be 20 years old at the time of accident.

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Resha Devi & Others (2017) 3 ADJ 685, a Division Bench of this Court held that the notional income of an unskilled labour should not be taken to be less than Rs.200/- per day while determining the multiplicand. The case of the claimant was that the deceased was working as a Painter and the said fact has also been proved by the testimony of the claimant's witness. In view of the aforesaid, the notional income of the deceased while determining the multiplicand has to be taken as Rs.200/- per day, i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased was 20 years old at the time of his death and unmarried. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% has to be added as future prospects in the notional income of the deceased, 50% has to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased while determining the multiplicand and a multiplier of 18 has to be applied while computing the pecuniary damages payable to the claimant.

In New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Washeema Bano 2022 (7) ADJ 513 (LB), this Court had held that in accident cases which took place after 26th September, 2011, the categories under which the non-pecuniary damages are to be awarded has to be decided in light of Rule 220-A (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and the amount to be awarded under the aforesaid categories is to be the amount fixed by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate due to the death of her son - Manish Dubey. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation payable to the claimant is re-determined as follows : -

(1) Notional income of the deceased = Rs.6,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.72,000/- per annum

(2) Adding 40% as future prospects in the income of the deceased = Rs.28,800/- (Rs.72,000/- x 40%)

Thus, total income of the deceased for purposes of compensation = Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/-)

(3) 50% deductions as personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.50,400/-

Thus, the multiplicand = Rs.50,400/- (Rs.1,00,800 - Rs.50,400)

(4) Applying a multiplier of 18, the non-pecuniary damages payable to the claimant = Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.50,400/- x 18)

(5) Loss of Consortium = Rs.40,000/-

(6) Loss of love and affection = Rs.50,000/-

(7) Compensation for funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/-

(8) Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/-

Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant =Rs.10,27,200/- (after adding Item Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)

Thus, it is held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,27,200/-. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated above. The compensation determined above shall carry the same interest as awarded by the Tribunal in its award dated 10.5.2017.

The balance amount / excess amount as awarded by this Court in the present appeal shall be deposited by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow, the opposite party no. 3 in the Tribunal within three months from today. The amount so deposited by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited under the present order of this Court, shall in turn be deposited by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in the highest interest bearing fixed deposit schemes, either of the post office or of any nationalized bank. The receipts of the fixed deposits shall be given to the claimant who shall be entitled to withdraw the maturity amount on maturity of the fixed deposits. The maturity amount shall be credited by the bank/post office in any savings account held by the claimant singly. The concerned bank or post office shall not permit any loan or advance against the fixed deposits made in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal, while depositing the amount in any fixed deposit scheme, shall communicate the directions issued by this Court to the concerned bank/post office.

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated above. Parties shall bear their own cost.

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

Satyam