Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 718 of 2004 Appellant :- Fareed Ahmad & Others Respondent :- M/S Central Transport Company & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhawesh Rai
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Bhawesh Rai, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by appellant, being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 26.4.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Fatehpur in MACT No.30 of 2001.
3. The facts are not in dispute, hence the only factum of age is considered. The accident occurred on 23.10.2000 is not in dispute. The first information report is not in dispute.The only ground raised in this appeal is that Tribunal granted compensation only Rs.1,54,000/- for the death of child of claimants aged about 13 years.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant 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."
5. 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 9% rate of interest up to date of award and 6% thereafter amount is deposited.
6. The appeal is partly allowed. The additional amount be recalculated with fresh rate of interest and deposited within 18 weeks from today. The judgment and decree shall stand modified to the aforesaid. Record if in this Court, be sent forthwith to the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018/Mukesh
Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 718 of 2004 Appellant :- Fareed Ahmad & Others Respondent :- M/S Central Transport Company & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhawesh Rai Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. (In Re:- Delay Condonation Application )
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018/Mukesh