Allahabad High Court
Malti Devi And Others vs Ghatok Chand And Others on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2004 of 2011
Appellant :- Malti Devi And Others
Respondent :- Ghatok Chand And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Vipin Kumar Sharma,Subash Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Subash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 7.2.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Bijnor in M.A.C.P. No.284 of 2008 (Malti Devi and others Vs. Ghatok Chand and others), by which the claim petition filed by claimants-appellants was partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.9,73,892/- along with 6% interest has been awarded to the claimants-appellants on account of death of Jaipal Singh in a road accident which was occurred on 5.12.2007.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimants-appellants that Claims Tribunal had erred in deducting 50% compensation on account of contributory negligence of the deceased whereas there was no evidence before the Claims Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased. It is further submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of offending motorcycle which was insured with the respondent no.3/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Investigating Officer after due investigation had submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of offending motorcycle bearing no.UA-12/5280. It is further submitted that claimants had produced one eye witness namely Pukhraj Singh as P.W.-2, who was pillion rider on the motorcycle which was driven by the deceased. The claimants had also produced Karan Singh Yadav as P.W.-3, who was also eye witness of the accident and both the eye witnesses had stated on oath before the Claims Tribunal that driver of offending motorcycle was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses whereas there are four dependents on the income of the deceased and as such the deduction would be 1/4 in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677.
4. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards future prospects and only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering whereas the claimants-appellants are entitled for 15% 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.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has submitted that it was a case of head-on collision between two motorcycles and as such the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence is based on evidence and there is no illegality in any manner.
6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that Claims Tribunal had awarded a very just and reasonable compensation which is not liable to be enhanced.
7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record. Record shows that F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of motorcycle no. UA-12/5280 and the Investigating Officer after investigation had submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of offending motorcycle. The claimants had also produced two eye witnesses as P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, who were also proved the rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal had erred in deciding the issue no.1 holding contributory negligence of the deceased in absence of any evidence of contributory negligence adduced by the respondents. So far as the future prospects is concerned, the claimants-appellants are also entitled for 15% future prospects in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :-
1. Monthly Income : = Rs.26,497/-
2. Annual Income : = Rs.26,497/- x 12 = Rs.3,17,964/-
3. Future prospects : (15%) = Rs.47,694.6/- (round figure Rs.47,695/-)
4. Total annual income : = Rs.3,17,964/- + Rs.47,695/- = Rs.3,65,659/-
5. Deduction towards
personal expenses (1/4) : = Rs.3,65,659/- - Rs.91,414.75 (round figure Rs.91,415/-)
= Rs.2,74,244/-
6. Multiplier applicable (9) : = Rs.2,74,244/- x 9 = Rs.24,68,196/-
7. Non-pecuniary damages : = Rs. 70,000/-
Total : Rs.24,68,196/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs. 25,38,196/-
8. 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.9,73,892/- to Rs.25,38,196/-. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/respondent no.3 is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.15,64,304/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition to the claimants/appellants, within two months from today.
9. No order as to costs.
10. The lower court record be remitted back to court concerned along with a copy of this order forthwith.
Order Date :- 03.08.2022
Kpy
