Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 380 of 2004 Appellant :- Maichand Respondent :- Smt. Kanta Jain Counsel for Appellant :- Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kymar Pandey
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Nipendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 24.04.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.150 of 2000 awarding a sum of Rs.6,97,268/- with interest at the rate of 8%.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is 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 Rs.60,000/- per annum as income which is unjust even in the year of accident. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least twice as he had permanent job and he was 24 years of age. He was survived by three dependents. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be disturbed and the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased.
5. It is submitted that the deceased being 24 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 18 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income which has not been proved cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. The additional amount under the head of future prospects has to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also required to be enhanced is submitted by counsel for the respondent.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.5000/- per month namely Rs.60,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 24 years of age, 50% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would come to Rs.60,000 + 30,000 = 90,000/- out of which 1/4th requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is rounded up to Rs.67,500/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 21- 25 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that Rs.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is accident of 2000. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 67,500 x 18 +70,000 = 12,85,000/-.
9. The rate of interest will have to be 9% and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Rules will apply. A 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 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decision of this High Court.
10. I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending the rate of interest requires to be decreased.
11. 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 award and 6% thereafter 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.
12. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Krishna