Allahabad High Court
Rajnikant Shukla And Another vs Tata Motors Ltd. And Others on 10 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2228
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2781 of 2008 Appellant :- Rajnikant Shukla And Another Respondent :- Tata Motors Ltd. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar,S.R.S. Tomar Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Vidya Kant, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Krisha Kant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent no. 2-New India Assurance Company and have perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy involved in present appeal is fully covered by a decision of this Court dated 17.7.2019 passed in First Appeal From Order No. 2632 of 2008. The said judgement dated 17.9.2019 is quoted hereinunder:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the complainant, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.05.2008 passed by District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.304 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.
3. The aforesaid submission has been vehemently objected by Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent as according to him, the Tribunal had awarded just compensation as per the evidence led before it.
4. While going through the record, it is clear that the tribunal has considered the matter by considering the age of the deceased to be 19 years working in a private job being unmarried granted multiplier on the basis of age of parents namely dependents.
5. May that as it may be, the quantum will have to be reevaluated. The income of the deceased as it transpires from the judgment itself and as the evidence led was Rs.3000/- per month as per the income tax returns. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it should be at least reevaluate that rate just because the income tax return was not proved and they were xerox copy, the tribunal has not considered the same even if we consider the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. It would 36,000/- per year. To which as the deceased was 19 years of age, 40% of his income requires to be added for future loss of income in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 which would bring the figure to Rs.36000 + Rs.14,400 = Rs.50,400/-. Out of which 1/2 requires to be deducted as personal expenses, he was a bachelor, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.25,200/-. As the deceased was aged 19 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants are the heirs of the deceased and fall in Class I and II. As they have lost their son, under the head of filial consortium in those days, Rs.25,000/- is granted under the head of love affection to parents. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,59,000 (i.e. 25,500 x 18) + Rs.25,000 = Rs.4,84,000/-.
6. However, the rate of interest which is 6% would be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :
"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."
7. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
8. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of."
Consequently, the present appeal also stands partly allowed and the judgement and decree dated 21.5.2008 stands modified to the extent as indicated in the above quoted judgement.
Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Abhishek