Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1549 of 2006 Appellant :- Smt. Gangashree And Others Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. Regional Manager Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhir Dixit,Vipin Chandra Dixit
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 7.2.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Etah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 454 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs.2,44,900/- with interest at the rate of 6%.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has been decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered the income ot the deceased to be Rs.1800/-. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least thrice as he was a mason. He was 35 years of age and was survived by widow and two children. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income the deceased 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 amount under non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal also requires to be enhanced.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require enhancement. However, he could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects is not to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the interest cannot be paid as claimed by the appellants.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased would be Rs. 3000/-per month namely Rs.36,000/- per year. To which, as the deceased was 35 years of age, 40% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would bring the figure to Rs.36,000 + 14,400 = 50,400/-. Out of which 1/3rd requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased has he was servived by his widow and two children, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.33,600/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40 years, the applicable multiplier would be 17 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and not 16 as has been held by the Tribunal. In addition to that, Rs.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2004. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. (33,600 x 17) + 70,000 =6,41,200/-.
7. The rate of interest will have to be 9% in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 which has been followed by this Court time and again and which will enure for the benefit of the appellants.
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 with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
10. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 DKS