Allahabad High Court
Geeta Yadav And 3 Others vs Prem Roadways, Registered ... on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 266 of 2022
Applicant :- Geeta Yadav And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- Prem Roadways, Registered Barnala Ride S.C.D.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
1. The respondent no.2 has preferred this review application with a prayer to modify / review the judgment dated 18.5.2022.
2. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Advocate submits that in paragraph nos.27 of the order dated 18.5.2022, the income of the deceased has been mentioned as Rs.27,000/- but in the document of salary (39G), the income of the deceased has been mentioned as Rs.17,464/-.
3. Learned counsel for the original respondent and learned counsel for claimant does not dispute that the mistake committed as Rs.27,000/- per month is mentioned in the claim petition and the award of the Tribunal
4. He would be entitled to all his deduction being a army man and, therefore, we considered his income to be Rs.17,000/- per month plus 50% deduction.
5. After hearing the parties, we reviewed the paragraph nos. 27 and 28 of the judgment dated 18.5.2022. The paragraph nos. 27 and 28 of the order dated 18.5.2022 is reviewed and new paragraph no.27 and 28 which read as under :
"27. Therefore, we consider the income of the deceased to be Rs.17,000/- per month. To which, as the deceased was below 40 years, 50% be added towards future loss of income in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit(SC) 1093. The later judgments could have been applied but it is not proved as to what would have been actual income in future of deceased. Thus, thumb rule of addition of future prospects is applied. The deceased being in the age bracket of 31-35 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 16 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 LawSuit( SC). The deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd as he had three persons dependant on the deceased. The family would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- plus 10% rise in every three year in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi ( Supra), we round up this figure to Rs.1,00,000/-.
28. Hence the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein below :
i. Monthly Income Rs.17,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs. 8,500/-
iii. Total income : Rs. 17,000/- + Rs.8,500/- = Rs.25,500/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses : RS.17,000/-
v. Annual income : Rs.17,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,04,000/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 16
vii. Loss of dependency : Rs. 2,04,000/- x 16 = Rs.32,64,000/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.33,64,000/-."
6. As far as the other heads are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties.
7. Application is allowed. The judgment dated 18.5.2022 would stand modified to the aforesaid extent. If the record is before this Court, the same be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
8. It is submitted by Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned Advocate that because of review application, the amount have not been paid to appellants- claimants which would be deposited within 12 weeks from today.
Order Date :- 8.7.2022/Mukesh
