Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved of award dated 19.9.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar in MACP No. 409 of 2007 on the ground that award is perverse and there was no material on record to show exclusive negligence on the part of the JCB vehicle operator meaning thereby that inference of contributory negligence should have been drawn in favour of the concerned JCB machine and consequently in favour of the Insurance Company. It is also submitted that driver of the JCB was having a licence to drive a LMV whereas he was not authorised to drive JCB vehicle and therefore award has been passed against the Insurance Company in violation of established principles of law, therefore be set aside.
Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent in his turn submits that claimants have filed cross objection on the ground that deceased was a salaried employee, therefore, taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be between 35-40 years claimants will be entitled to addition of future prospects at the rate of 30%. One third deduction has been made which will be enhanced to 1/4th in view of the facts that there are four claimants in the claim petition and under the head of non pecuniary compensation, only a sum of Rs. 9,500/- has been awarded which will be Rs. 70,000/- in the light of law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others as reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. It is also submitted that interest at the rate of 4% is too low interest should have been awarded at the rate of at least 6% interest.
After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to prove the factum of contributory negligence. Therefore, it takes us to another issue that the driver of JCB was having only LMV licence and not the licence for driving JCB.
In Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, light motor vehicle has been been defined as "a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms".
Sri Sahai admits that unladen weight of JCB in question was less than 7500 Kg, therefore, it will come within the definition of light motor vehicle and therefore in the opinion of the Court none of the grounds raised by the Insurance Company are sustainable to question the impgned award.
Counsel for the claimants/cross objectors, have not been able to substantiate ground of 1/4th deduction in as much as there is no evidence that fourth claimant Smt. Krishna Kumar W/o Dila Ram was depending on the deceased Rajesh Kumar despite survival of her husband Dila Ram. Therefore, submission of Ram Singh for 1/4th deduction deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
Issue of addition of future prospects is concerned, the Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has awarded future prospects at the rate of 30% for a person falling within the bracket of 35-40 years and therefore there will be addition of 30% to the extent income of Rs. 64,000/- Admitted by the Tribunal after necessary deductions, it will take the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased to Rs. 83,200/-.
As per law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 multiplier of 15 is applicable in place of 16 applied by the Claims Tribunal and therefore taking a multiplier of 15 total pecuniary compensation will come to Rs. 12,48,000/- in place of Rs. 10.24,000/-. Similarly claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs. 13,18,000/- in place of Rs. 10,33,500/-. Thus there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs. 2,84,500/-.
It is directed that rate of interest on the enhanced amount as well as the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal will be 6% in place of 4% as has been consistent view of this court in cases of accident prior to 2011 amendment in the UP Motor Vehicle Rules.
In above terms appeal and cross objections are disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021 S.K.S.