Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 704 of 2021 Appellant :- Kurban Ali And 2 Others Respondent :- Arif And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sumit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- Satya Deo Ojha,Aditya Singh Parihar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satya Deo Ojha and Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent.
As only two basic flaws are pointed out and as Sri Parihar has got instructions to conciliate in this matter which would be beneficial to the Insurance Company, we take up this matter for final disposal today itself.
The Tribunal, as rightly pointed out by Sri Daga, could not have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses as matter relates to injuries. No doubt the appeal is preferred by legal heirs along with the injured. The injured unfortunately passed away during this pandemic more precisely on 21.10.2020. This matter as such was preferred in the year 2018. The appellant Kurban Ali sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,19,400/-, vide award and decree dated 21.3.2018.
The aspect of income, future prospects, multiplier and amount under the head of non pecuniary damages, though agitated here, have now become redundant as the injured has passed away. We deem it fit that conciliation does not prove to be detrimental to both, therefore, 1/3rd deduction is set aside, which could not have been done as 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses has to be done only in matter where death has occurred and not in cases of injury. This has been principle of law enunciated and even propounded in Section 166 read with Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. U.P. rules would also not permit the Tribunal to deduct and, therefore, the said deduction could not have been done by the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the said finding.
It is pointed out by Sri Daga, which has been vehemently objected by Sri Parihar, that the matter did not prolong because of the claimants. We are not going into the genesis as to how the matter prolonged.
Further the Tribunal awarded the interest from the date of Judgment without any reason which could not be done. The Tribunal has not given any reason as to why it has not allowed interest from the date of filing of the claim petition which is normally routine order. If the Tribunal was not granting the interest as per Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 from the date of filing of the claim petition, it should have specified the reason for the same. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as follows:-
"171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.
Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf."
The reason of not granting should be reflected in the order just by stating that the Tribunal grants interest from the date of award without assigning reasons is bad in law, hence, we set aside the same.
The Tribunal has wrongly relied on the Judgment of Apex Court in Laxmi Devi & Others vs Mohammad Tabbar & Another, 2008 12 SCC 165 has considered his income to be Rs.3000/-. Then the Tribunal relied on Rule 220 A that he has two persons who are dependent on him and that is why 33.33% of the income is to be deducted for his personal expenses and, accordingly, it assessed his monthly income to be Rs.800/-. Thus, the Tribunal assessed his annual income to be 800x12x17= Rs. 1,63,200/- to which the Tribunal added 40% for future loss of income, which came to be Rs.2,28,500/-. It further added Rs. 2,90,900/- for medical expenses. And, thus, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.5,19,400/- as compensation.
The calculation is re-modified in the light of the fact that his income is considered to Rs.3,000/- to which as he was aged 32 years, 40% has to be added where after figure comes to Rs.4200/-. He has 40 per cent disability, hence, out of Rs.4200, we consider. 1600/- as his monthly income. Hence, annual income comes to Rs.1600x12x17= Rs.3,26,400/-. We do not disturb the amount under the head of medical expenses and other expenses.
We have requested Sri Parihar for conciliation. We would also see that Insurance Company is not put to loss. We award interest at the rate of 6% from the date of Judgment till the amount is deposited.
In that view of above, the Insurance Company shall recompute the amount of compensation. However, rate of interest would be 6% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited.
This Court is thankful to all the appearing counsels for getting the matter disposed of without the records.
The appellant no.1 (deceased) shall be substituted by his legal representatives, i.e., appellants 1/1 and 1/2. Amendment be carried out before we sign the Judgment.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Ram Murti