Allahabad High Court
Sanoj vs M/S Mangla Oil Carier Pvt. Ltd. And 2 ... on 24 May, 2024
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94748
Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2664 of 2016
Appellant :- Sanoj
Respondent :- M/S Mangla Oil Carier Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vikash Singh,Nigamendra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Bhartendu Pathak
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhartendu Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are owner and driver of vehicle.
3. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgement and award dated 18.04.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.- 13/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No. 380 of 2013 (Sanoj Kumar Vs. M/s Mangala Oil Carrier Pvt. Ltd. and others) by which compensation of Rs. 6,10,068/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimant-appellant on account of injuries received by him.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a very meager amount has been awarded by the claims tribunal. The claimant has fully proved his income by producing cogent evidence and the claims tribunal has erred in awarding compensation accepting Rs. 4,153/- as monthly income of the claimant and amount of Rs. 1,765/- received by the claimant under the head of H.R.A. was deducted by the tribunal from the income of the deceased. The claims tribunal has erred in deducting amount of H.R.A., whereas the house rent allowance includes in the income of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava reported in 2008 (2) SCC 763. The relevant paragraph nos. 19 and 21 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.
21. If the dictionary meaning of the word "income" is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute."
5. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects, wheres, the claimant-appellant is entitled for 50% future prospects as the claimant was in permanent job and was below 40 years at the time of accident in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others reported in 2018 (2) T.A.C. 14. The relevant paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 are reproduced herein below:-
"8 In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.
In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court held:
"The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only 2011 (12) SCALE 658 for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." In K Suresh v New India Assurance Company Ltd., this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh and B Kothandapani v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited. The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited , this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd., Nizam's Institute of Medeical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka, Reshma Kumari v Madam Mohan, Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company, and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and held thus:
"18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance3 Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (Id at page 693) (2012)12SCC274 (1990) 3 SCC 723 (2011) 6 SCC 420 (2011) 10 SCC 683 (1995) 1 SCC 551 (2009) 6 SCC 1 (2009) 13 SCC 422 (2010) 10 SCC 254 (2011) 1 SCC 343 These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation12 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was).
9 Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on 24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.
10 In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/- towards loss of future prospects."
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is almost just and proper and no ground for enhancement is made out. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since the age of claimant was 33 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 and the claims tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 17, however he has not disputed that the claimant is entitled to receive 50% towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the vehicle was plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as the permit of the vehicle was not filed either by claimant or by owner of the vehicle and right of recovery has rightly been given to the Insurance Company. If the compensation is enhanced, then respondent-Insurance Company may be permitted to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
7. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. As per the case of the claimant, the claimant had received grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanent disable. As per disability certificate there was disability of 45%. So far as income of the claimant-injured is concerned, the claims tribunal has erred in excluding the amount received towards H.R.A. from the monthly income of the injured. The amount of Rs. 1,765/- received by claimant under the head of H.R.A. is included in his monthly income for the purposes to calculate the just compensation. The claimant-appellant is also entitled for 50% future prospects in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish (supra).
9. In view of above, the appeal preferred by claimant-appellant is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is reassessed as under:-
i. Monthly Income= Rs. 4,153/- + Rs. 1765/- = Rs. 5,918/-
ii. Annual Income= Rs. 5,918 x 12= Rs. 71,016/-
iii. Future prospects (50%)= Rs. 35,508/-
iv. Total Annual
Income= Rs. 71,016/- + Rs. 35,508/- = Rs. 1,06,524/-
v. Loss of income (45%) = Rs. 47,935.8 /- = Rs, 47,936/-
vi. Multiplier applicable(16) = Rs. 47,936/- x 16 = Rs. 7,66,976/-
vii. Medical expenses = Rs.2,21,823/-
viii. Pain and suffering = Rs. 7,000/-
ix. Total compensation = Rs. 7,66,976/- + Rs. 2,21,823/- + Rs. 7,000 /-
= Rs. 9,95,799/-
10. In view of above the judgment and award of the claims tribunal is modified and compensation is enhanced from Rs. 6,10,068/- to Rs. 9,95,799/-.
11. The claimant-appellant is also entitled for 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of judgement and award dated 18.04.2016.
12. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount along with interest to the claimant within a period of two months from today. In case of default in depositing the amount as indicated above, the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest @ 10% on the enhanced amount till payment.
13. However, the respondent-Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the deposited enhanced amount from the respondent no.1, who is owner of the offending vehicle.
14. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
Virendra
