1
Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1476 of 2021 Appellant :- Koriyan Das Alias Pappu And Another Respondent :- Station In Charge Uttarakhand R.T.C. Depot And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Anand Gaur
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Road Transport Nigam Depot and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the award and decree dated 13.09.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 761 of 2011.
3. The accident occurred in the year 2011. The deceased was in private job is not in dispute. The tribunal has considered the income to be Rs. 3000/- per month holding that the appellants/claimants did not prove by cogent evidence income of deceased and did not grant any amount under the head of future loss of income and deducted ½ as his personal expenses and granted multiplier of 15 on the basis of age of the parents. The Tribunal has granted only Rs. 4500/- under non pecuniary heads and awarded interest at 6%. These findings are under challenge by the legal hears of the deceased, who are father and mother of deceased who was a bachelor and aged 21 years.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was in private job aged about 21 years. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that income of deceased should be at least considered Rs. 4500/- per month in the year 2011 and 40% be added as future prospects and multiplier should be 18 as per age of deceased. He has placed reliance on the decision of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Rs. 1,00,000/- should be granted as filial consortium and interest should be 9%.
5. Per contra, Sri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Road Transport Nigam Depot contended that the deceased has not produced any documentary evidence and the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 did not permit the addition of any amount of future loss where the person had no salaried income, therefore, the Tribunal did not grant future loss of income. It is further submitted that judgments in those days to grant multiplier was to grant as per the age of the parents in case of death of bachelor. It is submitted that the pecuniary damages granted are just and proper according to Sri Gaur interest should be 6% and not more. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is huge delay in filing the appeal which remained pending for the last eight years, therefore, the respondent be not saddled with interest for the said period.
6. The accident occurred and the involvement of the vehicle owned by the respondents is not in dispute. The vehicle met with accident is also not in dispute. The deceased was bachelor and 21 years of age and the accident having taken place on 20.11.2011 is also not in dispute. The road accident took place at Mansoorpur District Muzaffarnagar by Bus No. UA 07 J 0744 whereby the deceased Peter @ Ravi sustained head injury, which ultimately resulted into death of Peter @ Ravi is also not in dispute. The respondents filed reply, which was one of denial. The only question of fact and law involved is for determination of compensation, which is under challenge as the principles adopted by the Tribunal were against the mandate of the Apex Court. There is delay of 79 days and for the period of 79 days the Insurance Company would not be liable for the interest as held by the Apex Court in Lakkamma and others Vs. Regional Manager M/s United India Insurance Company Limited and another 2021 SC 3301.
7. Having heard the counsels for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court finds that income of the deceased should be considered as Rs. 4500/- per month in the year 2011 and as the deceased was below 40 years, 40% should be added as future loss of income and deduction for personal expenses will have to be ½ as mother can be said to be dependent on the son and multiplier should be 18 as the deceased was below 25 years of age to which Rs. 40,000/- will have to be given under the head of non pecuniary damages and we grant interest at 7% as there is delay.
8. The award and decree passed by the Tribunal would stand modified and the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:
i. Income Rs.4,500/-
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% ( Rs. 2,700/-)
iii. Total income : Rs.4,500 + 2,700 = Rs.7,200/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses : Rs.3,600/- (round figure)
v. Annual income : Rs.3,600 x 12 = Rs.43,200/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 18
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.43,200 x 18 = Rs.7,77,600/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.40,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.7,77,600 + Rs.40,000 = 8,17,600/-
9. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7% from the date of filing of claim petition till the deposit of the amount.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Award and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The additional amount be deposited by the respondent-
Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7%. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
11. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 AK Pandey