Allahabad High Court
Sonam Kumari And 2 Others vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And 2 ... on 19 August, 2019
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1071 of 2019 Appellant :- Sonam Kumari And 2 Others Respondent :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Sinha,Deepali Srivastava Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Amaresh Sinha Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amaresh Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 11.1.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 244 of 2015 awarding a sum of Rs.6,07,600/- with interest at the rate of 7%.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 36,000/- per year which is unjust and it should have been at least Rs.4500/- per month as he was cook in dhaba. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 2548 of 2013 (Ravi Shanker Tiwari and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain and others) decided on 2.2.2018. It is further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and require enhancement.
5. As against this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income which has not been proved cannot be granted and amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased, in the year of accident, should have been at least Rs.4500/- per month namely Rs.54,000/- per year, to which as the deceased was below 40 years of age, 40% of the income i.e. Rs. 21,600/- requires to be added as future income which would come to Rs.54000+21,600 = 75,600/-. The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased granted by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, after deduction of 1/3rd, the annual datum figure available to the family would be Rs.50,400/-. The multiplier of 16 granted by the Tribunal looking to the age of the decease is just and proper. Rs.70,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of non-pecuniary damages is also just and proper. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.50,400 x 16 + 70,000 = 8,76,400/-
7. The rate of interest will have to be 9% in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 which has been followed by this Court time and again and which will enure for the benefit of the appellants.
8. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be recalculated and deposited with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
Order Date :- 19.8.2019 DKS