Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1990 of 2003
Appellant :- Gurmeet
Respondent :- Anish And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Nigamendra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- B.C.Naik,Pankaj Bharti
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 24.04.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1 / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffar Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2191 of 1998 (Gurmit versus Anish and others) awarding a sum of Rs.7,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% for the injuries sufffered by the claimant- appellant, who has amputation on his lower limb.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred on 17.05.1998 is not in dispute. The insurance of the vehicle being invoked and there was no breach of policy condition. The insurance company has accepted the judgment as far as their liability is concerned. The owner has absented himself.
4. The tribunal unfortunately granted Rs.50,000/- as general damages and Rs.1,20,000/- for medical expanses with 9% rate of interest to a young person of 20 years who according to the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer has sustained 60% as bodily disability. It is submitted by Shri B.C. Naik, learned Advocate for the insurance company that doctor has not opined what is the functional disability caused to the injured and he has further submitted that though in the claim petition a sum of Rs.3,500/- is said to be his income, as he was working in electronic goods shop and, therefore, his income cannot be more than Rs.3500/- and according to him, the interest cannot be granted at the rate of 18% per annum.
5. At the outset, the judgment by the Tribunal does not take into consideration the multiplier of 18 which has to be applied for even injury cases. On what basis future loss of income of Rs. 50,000/- is granted is also not discussed by the Tribunal.
6. In the year 1998, his income can be considered to be Rs.2,000/- per month, and Rs.24,000/- yearly and to that as he was self employed at the rate of 40% will have to be added Rs. 9,600/- would be the income of the injured in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed. Sadiq and others (Supra) and considering his permanent disability as 60%, we can consider his functional disability for the same to be 40%, hence, Rs. 33,600 x 40% = Rs.13440/- would be the amount available to the injured and as he was 20 years of age, the multiplier applicable would be 18 and hence after multiplication the figure would be Rs.13440 x 18 = 2,41,920/-. The medical bills run into Rs.1,74,922/- but Shri B.C. Naik, Advocate on scrutinizing the bills, submitted that these were of Rs.1,63,753/-, to that a rough figure of additional amount of Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses be added. Further, Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards future medicines special diet and attendant charges and Rs.25,000/- is granted for pain, shock and suffering.
7. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to total amount of Rs. 2,41,920+1,70,000+25,000+25,000 = 4,61,920/-.
8. The claimant had demanded Rs.5,34,122/- is the submission of Shri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. The Apex Court has recently also held that the claimant should be paid what is known as just compensation. In that view of the matter, the compensation be re-evaluated will have to be deposited by the insurance company. The amount has been granted with 7.5% rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited.
10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, the interest should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :
"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."
11. This court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.
12. The record and proceedings of the tribunal be sent back to the tribunal.
13. The amount be disbursed to the claimant without keeping it in fix deposit as more than 21 years have elapsed after the accident. The judgment and decree shall stand modified.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019
A.N. Mishra