Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 924 of 2003 Appellant :- Mahesh Kumar Sahu And Ors Respondent :- Shanta Ram Mandorey And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- H.P. Dube Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Khanna, Siddarth Jaiswal
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri H.P. Dube, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Siddarth Jaiswal for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This is a claimants' appeal. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, hence the appeal is admitted and is taken up for final hearing as Sri H.P. Dube, learned consel for the appellants submitted that the matter is covered by a judgment of this Court and the delay was because of ignorance of law. Having heard Sri Siddarth Jaiswal for the respondent-Insurance Company, the better course would be to dispose of the matter at this stage as otherwise it would remain pending as it would be treated as a matter of the year 2019 instead of that the appeal is taken up for final disposal itself.
3. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 3.5.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, in MACP No.397 of 2001, awarding a sum of Rs.99,664/- with 7 % interest.
4. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of a minor child of 9 years. The appellants are the parents and family member of the minor child who died in the accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Single Cab bearing No.MH-15TRP-611. The accident having occurred is not in dispute. The respondent herein has not filed any appeal or cross-objection meaning thereby they have accepted the findings of the Tribunal.
5. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error in not granting Rs.1,50,000/-, which is minimum, by calculating notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. He has further submitted that the amount should be not less than Rs.1,50,000/- and has submitted that minimum amount would be Rs.1,50,000/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the award is bad and he has further relied on decision of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC), and Manju Devi's case, reported in 2005 (1) TAC 609, as relied by this Court in its recent decision 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 th 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."
8. Sri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent could not point out that the enhancement called for is objectionable.
9. The judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in Kishan Gopal's case the apex court did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses. 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/-. I am even fortified in my view by the decisions of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anwar Ali and another, 2003 (3) TAC 12 (All.); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Kumar and others, 2007 ACJ 1466; New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Raj Bahadur and another, 2002 (3) TAC 409 (All.).
10. The normal rate of interest after the judgment in Mumtaz Ahmad (Supra) would be 9%, hence, the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with 9% rate of interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the judgment of the Tribunal and 4% thereafter.
11. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree shall stand modified. The additional amount be recalculated with fresh rate of interest and deposited within 12 weeks from today.
12. This Court is thankful to both the counsels appearing for the parties for getting this old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 DKS
Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 924 of 2003 Appellant :- Mahesh Kumar Sahu And Ors Respondent :- Shanta Ram Mandorey And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- H.P. Dube Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Khanna, Siddarth Jaiswal
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application) Heard Sri H.P. Dube, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Siddarth Jaiswal for the respondent.
The delay is minimal and of 49 days is condoned. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 DKS