Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1376 of 2000 Appellant :- Smt.Bitan And Others Respondent :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar Nigam,A C Nigam,Rahul Sahai,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.5.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XVIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.Petition No.372 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% for the death of the cleaner of Truck which means that he was under the employment. .
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has given the recovery rights. The only issue to be decided is, the compensation.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 18,000/- per annum which is unjust and it should have been at least to be Rs.24,000/- per annum as the deceased was having a cleaner on the truck . It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that the amount under non-pecuniary heads awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent states that the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference as income of the deceased has not been proved.
6. Sri A.C.Nigam, Advocate states that the licence of the driver were not produced. The said ground has been dealt with by the Tribunal below. The Insurance Company represented by Sri A.C. Nigam, Advocate has not come up in appeal before this Court. However, if the Tribunal has held that there was no driving licence, the oral submission of Sri A.C. Nigam is allowed subject to judgment of Pappu and others Versus Vinod Kumar Lamba and others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 592 and if the limitation has not gone, they may recover the amount from the owner.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.2000/- per month namely Rs.24,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 40 years of age, 25% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would come to Rs.24,000 + 6,000 = 30,000/- out of which 1/3rd requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased as he had four dependants and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.20,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40 years, the applicable multiplier would be 15 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that Rs.40,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2000. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.20,000 x 15 +40,000 =Rs.3,40,00/-.
8. 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 within 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. The liability fixed by the Tribunal is maintained.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Mukesh