Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Verma vs Krishan Mohan Mishra And Others on 5 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. - 2282 of 2004 Appellant :- Kamlesh Verma Respondent :- Krishan Mohan Mishra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Chandra Naik Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Respondent who have not appointed counsel for fifteen years,the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage as it is covered by the judgment of this Court wherein First Appeal From Order No.2287 of 2004 (Kamlesh Verma Versus Krishan Mohan Mishra and others) decided on 25.5.2018 came to be allowed which arose out of the same accident.
2. This is a claimants' appeal claiming enhancement for the death of son who was twelve years of age at the time of death. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered a multiplier of '15' for persons upto 15 years of age and notional income of Rs.15,000/- P.A. calculated of compensation comes to Rs.4,15,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the award is bad and relied on decision of this Court and Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this Court in its recent decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows:
"6. Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is also partly allowed."
4. The judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the apex court did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses. Under all the heads, the judgment of Mumtaz Ahmad (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case, hence, the award is required to be enhanced and is enhanced to Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till today.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The additional amount be recalculated with fresh rate of interest and deposited within 12 weeks from today. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
6. The respondents who have been saddled with the composite liability, they may deposit the amount in their share likewise within 12 weeks from today.
7. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.2.2020 Mukesh