Allahabad High Court
Mahesh And 2 Others vs I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance ... on 20 February, 2020
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2994 of 2019 Appellant :- Mahesh And 2 Others Respondent :- I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Sahai,Rahul Sahai Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and perused the record.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 2016.
3. Recently, the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender and Others reported in 2020 Law Suit (S.C.) 26 has held that even if the legal heirs are major they are entitled to compensation. In this case the brother and the sisters are the legal heirs of the deceased. The accident is not in dispute. The vehicle involved in this accident is not in dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on judgments in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others reported in 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.) and National Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Birender and Others reported in 2020 Law Suit (S.C.) 26.
5. It is an admitted position of fact that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased- Mahipal Singh was 18 years who did not have parents and had one younger brother and two sisters.
6. The Tribunal has held that the legal heirs were entitled to a sum of Rs.50000/- only and relied on the decision on Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 1474 and granted only Rs.15,000/- this is nothing but misleading of the judgment of the Apex Court.
7. It is submitted by Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased in the year 2016 can be considered to be Rs.6,000/-, to which as the deceased was 18 years, 40% will have to be added. Hence, the compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105 is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.3,000/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects: 40 % namely Rs.1,200/-. iii. Total income : Rs.3,000 + 1,200 = Rs. 4,200/- iv. Income after deduction of ½: Rs.2,100/- v. Annual income : Rs.2,100 X 12= Rs.25,200/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 18 vii. Loss of dependency : 25,200 X 18= 4,53,600/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.50,000/- ix. Total compensation : Rs. 4,53,600+50,000=5,03,600/-.
8. This submission of Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the appellants is vehemently objected by Sri Rahul Sahai. He has contended that brother and sisters are not dependent on the deceased and though they may be representatives. The judgment of Manjuri Bera (supra) has rightly been relied upon by the Tribunal relying on the judgments is just and proper.
9. The learned Judge seeks to have misplaced his interpretation of the judgment of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 1474 which has been interpreted by this Court also that the minimum admissible compensation would be Rs.50,000/-.
10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender and Others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest point of time.
11. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
12. 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 deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
13. It has been clarified by this Court in the Division Bench judgment of which the undersigned was also a signatory.
14. Record be sent back to the Tribunal.
15. The appeal is partly allowed.
16. It goes without saying that this Court has not interfered with the recovery rights granted by the Tribunal as the owner is not before this Court.
17. On depositing the amount, the Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the same from the registered owner.
18. This court is thankful to both the counsel for ably assisting to this Court to getting this old appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.02.2020 Krishna