Allahabad High Court
Jeet Lal vs Shashank Vats And Another on 22 January, 2020
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 2830 of 2019 Appellant :- Jeet Lal Respondent :- Shashank Vats And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Babu Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Jyotsna Srivastava AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 65 of 2017 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Jeet Lal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avanish Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Babu Dubey Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident. The deceased was 18 years of age. The accident occurred on 18.1.2014 is not in dispute. The vehicle was insured with New India Insurance Company is also not in dispute.
3. Both the appellants of both appeals have challenged the compensation awarded. Unfortunately, the first submission of the Insurance Company in FAFO No.65 of 2017 is that it is settled principles of law that in case of death of unmarried person, the multiplier should be applied as per the age of the parents. The judgment of Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (6) SCALE 552, which is a judgment of the year 2013 was pointed out to Sri Avanish Mishra, Counsel for Insurance company, and hence the said ground 1 and 2 are rejected as the question is no longer res-integra and even later judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050.
4. It is further submitted by Sri Avansih Mishra, learned counsel for Insurance company, that the Tribunal in fact erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses though the deceased was a bachelor. The said submission has to be accepted and the said fact has not been objected by the learned counsel for the claimant that deduction towards personal expenses should be ½ and not 1/3rd as deceased was a bachelor. However, the submission that 40% of compensation for future prospect could not have been added to the actual compensation cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of Pranay Setthi (supra). The fact that just because the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules does not permit future additon of income cannot be accepted as Pranay Setthi's judgment is later in point of time is pressed into service by Sri Shiv Babu Dubey for the claimant, who has also placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Shanker Tiwari and another Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain and others, 2018 LawSuit (All) 3998, hence the said ground fails. I do not find any force in ground no.6 raised by the Insurance company.
5. It is submitted by Sri Mishra that the father was not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, no amount could have been directed to be paid to the father of the deceased. This technical cannot be now accepted and, therefore, the technical ground that mother was not made a party hence the claim petition should have been dismissed can be remedied by directing the appellant to give an undertaking that the money will be paid to his wife also, mother of the deceased as she has deposed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also directed that ½ of the amount be paid to her. Hence, this technical stand taken by the Insurance company can be met with by directing amount to be paid to the mother of the deceased, who has deposed before the Tribunal but it would not vitiate the entire proceedings. The said ground raised by the Insurance company can be met with by directing the modification of memo of appeal preferred by the appellant as it is a beneficial piece of legislation and it is true and I agree with Sri Mishra that the father has not proved that he was dependent on the deceased. However, a recent judgment of the Apex Court will permit this Court to grant amount in favour of the mother, who is in Class-I heir ship under the Hindu Succession Act and who has deposed before the Tribunal and, therefore, this can be said to be an irregularity but will not vitiate the entire proceedings.
6. This takes the Court now to the quantum to be awarded which will have to be re-evaluated.
7. The income of the deceased, who was 18 years of age, can be considered to be Rs. 4,000/- per month in the year of accident namely Rs.2,014/- and I am in agreement with the submission of counsel for the Insurance company that Rs.8000/- cannot be assessed to be the income as the same has not been proved, to which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 15 - 20 years, 40% will have to be added. Hence, the compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.4,000/- per month ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.1,600/- iii. Total income : Rs. 4,000 + 1,600 = Rs. 5,600/- iv. Income after deduction of personal expenses will be 1/2 : Rs. 2,800/- v. Annual income : Rs.2,800 x 12 = Rs.33,600/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 18 vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 33,600 x 18 = Rs. 6,04,800/- viii. Amount under filial consortium heads : Rs.50,000/- x. Total compensation : Rs. 6,54,800/-
8. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the 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 in point of time. However, 50% of the amount deposited will be paid to the mother of the deceased as she has not been made party and the Tribunal has not directed that money should be paid to her.
9. The appeal preferred by the Insurance company is allowed to the effect that deduction of ½ and not 1/3rd should have been made for personal expenses.
10. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The difference in amount be deposited by the Insurance company within 12 weeks from today with 9% rate of interest.
11. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.1.2020 Irshad