Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sonica Shukla And Others vs The National Insurance Company ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171187
Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 269 of 2009
Appellant :- Smt. Sonica Shukla And Others
Respondent :- The National Insurance Company Ltd. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Shreesh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum whereas deceased was self employed and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that even if there was no proof of income of the deceased on record, the Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs.3500/- per month i.e. Rs.42,000/- per annum as income of the deceased instead of Rs.36,000/- for computing the compensation. It is further submitted that no amount towards future prospect has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants/appellants whereas considering the age of the deceased, claimants/appellants are also entitled to 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is further contended that there were four dependants upon the deceased, therefore, considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121, Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd.
4. It is further submitted that a very meagre amount of Rs.9500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages whereas, claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Lastly, it is contended that Tribunal has erred in law in awarding interest from the date of passing of award whereas it is settled in law that interest on the awarded amount should be awarded from the date of institution of claim petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper as there was no proof of income of the deceased and hence, the same does not call for interference by this Court in the appeal. It is further submitted that considering the age of the deceased, Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 17 for computing the compensation in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in respect of assessment of income of the deceased has substance. Accordingly, it is provided that Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.3500/- per month i.e. Rs.42,000/- per annum instead of Rs.36,000/- for the purpose of computation of compensation. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in respect of future prospect and grant of non-pecuniary expenses has got force in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, following the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court, claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect considering the age of the deceased, and further non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.9500/- to Rs.70,000/-.
8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants with regard to deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, the same has got force in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, it is provided that 1/4th should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd from the income of the deceased for computation of compensation.
9. This Court is of the view that submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 17 has substance in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, this Court holds that enhanced amount of compensation should be computed by applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 17.
10. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in respect of awarding interest from the date of institution of claim petition has substance. Accordingly, this Court holds that the entire amount of compensation shall carry 6% simple interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of its payment.
11. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants/appellants within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2023
Sattyarth
