Lalli Gupta And 3 Ors. vs Kundan Singh And 2 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4041 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 972 of 2016
 
Appellant :- Lalli Gupta And 3 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Kundan Singh And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Neeraj Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra,Rajeev Kumar Singh,Sudhir Kumar Tripathi
 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Aashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.3/Reliance General 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 30.11.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Varanasi in M.A.C.P. No.195 of 2014 (Lalli Gupta and others Vs. Kundan Singh and others), by which the claim petition filed by claimants-appellants was partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- along with 7% interest has been awarded to the claimants-appellants on account of death of Bablu Gupta aged about 38 years.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimants-appellants that Claims Tribunal had erred in deciding the issue no.1 holding 50% negligence of the deceased whereas the Insurance Company had not adduced any evidence in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel for claimants-appellants has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735. The relevant paragraph 29 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:-

"29. On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the appellants/claimants herein should have taken utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants/claimants were moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge-sheeted under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, but given the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution of the appellants/claimants in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside."

4. It is further submitted that claimants-appellants had fully proved the negligence of driver of offending car bearing no.UP-53/BC-0099 by producing cogent evidence. It is submitted that Investigating Officer after due investigation had submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of insured car. Lastly, it is submitted that there was no evidence adduced by respondents in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Insurance Company has submitted that from the perusal of site plan it is apparent that it was a case of head-on collision and the accident was occurred almost in the middle of road and as such the deceased was equally negligent and responsible for the accident. It is further submitted that four persons were traveling on motorcycle on a public road which is not permissible under the law and it is in violation of Motor Vehicles Rules and as such in any case the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle was also negligent and responsible for the accident.

6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it is evident that four persons were traveling on a motorcycle and the accident was occurred almost in the middle of road but so far as negligence is concerned, the Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against driver of insured car and P.W.-2 Bacchu Lal, who was an eye witness of the accident had also proved the negligence of car driver. From the perusal of evidence adduced by the parties, the driver of car was found more negligent in comparison to the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle and as such the contributory negligence of deceased of 50% as held by Claims Tribunal is reduced from 50% to 25% and the driver of car is held to be negligent to the extent of 75%.

7. Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants has submitted that Claims Tribunal had erred in deducing 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas there was four dependents on the income of the deceased and as such the deduction should be 1/4 in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673, has provided 40% future prospects and Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Insurance Company has submitted that Claims Tribunal had also erred in applying the multiplier of 16 accepting the age of the deceased as 38 years whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court has provided the multiplier of 15 for the age group of 36-40 years in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

9. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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 (1/4) :              = Rs.50,400/-  - Rs.12,600 = Rs. 37,800/-
 
6. Multiplier applicable (15) :       = Rs.37,800/- x 15 = Rs.5,67,000/- 
 
7. Deduction towards
 
    contributory negligence (25%)	= Rs.5,67,000/- - Rs.1,41,750/- = Rs.4,25,250/-
 
8. Non-pecuniary damages :         = Rs. 70,000/- 
 
Total : Rs. 4,25,250/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 4,95,250/- 
 

10. 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.1,97,000/- to Rs.4,95,250/-. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited/respondent no.3 is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.2,98,250/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing claim petition to the claimants/appellants, within two months from today.

11. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

Kpy