Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2019 of 2019 Appellant :- Babali And Another Respondent :- Guru Harikisan Public School And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Manohar AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2018 of 2019 Appellant :- Babali And Another Respondent :- Guru Harikisan Public School And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Manohar AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2020 of 2019 Appellant :- Raj Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- Guru Harikisan Public School And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Manohar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. All these three appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Saharanpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.298 of 2015 (Smt. Babali and another vs. Guru Hari Kishan Public School and others), whereby the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellants herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The accident took place on 26.9.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., when the deceased was a pillion on the motorcycle of her father bearing No.UP-19B-5389, when they are going from Village- Abdulla Khan to Shakumbari Devi, a school bus came from behind and dashed with motorcycle, whereby deceased Neha, who was 14 years of age and a student died. FIR was registered against the bus driver. The issues were framed and decided in favour of the claimants.
5. The accident caused death of master Prince, who was 6 years of age at the time of accident and Ramwati, Mother of Rajkumar. The death of three persons were decided by the Tribunal on different dates. In claim petition 297 of 2015 preferred for death of Kumari Neha, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- however the Tribunal did not grant any interest as per section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The claim petition being 299 of 2015 was filed for claiming compensation for the death of mother of the claimants. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,93,000/- with 6% rate of interest and in the third claim petition filed for the death of 6 years old child the tribunal granted Rs.1,50,000/- without interest.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income, which has not been proved, cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is submitted by counsel for the respondents.
FAFO Nos. 2018 and 2019 of 2019
7. The deceased were below the age of 15. Recently, this High Court in Vishnu Devi Rathore vs. National Insurance CO.Ltd. and another, 2019 (2) TAC 942 (All.) and Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Gaffar Khan and others, 2019 (2) ADJ 173, wherein it has been held that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The judgment lays emphasis on several other decisions, and, therefore, the judgment prior to in time granting amount on the basis of the judgment of Kishan Gopal cannot be made applicable as the said decision did not discuss any case law. The decision of learned Single Judge cited by the claimants cannot be considered as the judgement subsequent will prevail and it is a reasoned judgment decided on 29th November, 2018. Thus the amount is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% would be just and proper.
FAFO No.2020 of 2019
8. As far as this appeal is concerned, the deceased was above the age group of 60 years. The judgment passed in the case of The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar and others (FAFO No.3706 of 2017) dated 21/11/2017 cited by the counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable as it was a case of young housewife whereas in our case, the deceeased was aged 61 years of age. It was stated that she was carrying on milk-cake business. The tribunal considered the income as Rs.3000/- per month as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi (supra) has not added any amount for future loss of income and no fault found to that. The tribunal deducted 1/3 towards her personal expenses. The multiplier of 7 was granted as she was 61 years of age. No fault can be found to the same. The only area in which interference can be given is an additional amount of Rs.45,000/- under the head of compensation of love and affection can be granted. This amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%.
9. All the three appeal are partly allowed. The Insurance Company shall work out the difference and deposit the same within 12 weeks from today. In FAFO No.2018 of 2019, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with 7.5%, in FAFO No.2019 of 2019, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with 7.5% and in FAFO No. 2020 of 2019, a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- + Rs.45,000/- with 7.5.% rate of interest would be just and proper compensation.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed. The record be sent to the Tribunal.
11. This Court is thankful to both the counsel to see that this matter is disposed of.
Order Date:- 27.9.2019 LNTripathi