Allahabad High Court
Smt. Radha Saini And Another vs Ashok Kumar Mishra And Another on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2749 of 2011
Appellant :- Smt. Radha Saini And Another
Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Mishra And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Vidya Kant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- O.P. Mishra
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 1.
This first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 04.05.2011, passed by Additional District Jude, Court No. 2 / Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 909 of 2009 (Smt. Radha and another vs. Ashok Kumar Mishra and another) by which compensation of Rs. 2,23,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Raj Kumar Saini @ Nankau Saini, aged about 27 years.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that the Claims Tribunal has erred in accepting the notional income of Rs. 18,000/- per month whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofLaxmi Devi & Others vs Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.) has provided notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month (Rs. 36,000/- per annum). It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas, the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 70,000/- for non pecuniary damages in view of law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 / Insurance Company has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 18 accepting the age of the deceased as 27 years, whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court has provided multiplier of 17 for the age group of 26-30 years in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.), as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 18 in place of 17.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the present first appeal from order is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :-
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 (1/3th) : Rs. 50,400/- - Rs. 16,800/- = Rs. 33,600/-
6. Multiplier applicable (17) : Rs. 33,600/- x 17 = Rs. 5,71,200/-
7. Non-pecuniary damages : Rs. 70,000/-
Total : Rs. 5,71,200/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 6,41,200/-
The Appeal is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,23,000/- to Rs. 6,41,200/-. The claimants-appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing claim petition. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay enhanced amount a well as interest to the claimants within two months from today.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
sailesh
