Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 916 of 2006 Appellant :- Makkhan Lal And Another Respondent :- United India Insurance Co. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Singhal,Ambreesh Kumar,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Counsel for Respondent :- V.C. Dixit
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Shri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents. No one is present for the owner.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 25.11.20015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra (herein after referred to as "Tribunal") in MACP No.1004 if 2003, whereby a sum of Rs.1,54,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants with 6% interest, who filed the claim petitioner after 15 years of the accident.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellants herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the compensation awarded.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has considered Rs.15,000/- per annum as income of the deceased, 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. 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 45 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 15 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 Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.1500/- per month, namely Rs.18,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 45 years of age, 25% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), which would come to Rs.18,000/- + Rs.4500/- = Rs.22,500/-, out of which 1/3 requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family would be Rs.15,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 41-45 years, the applicable multiplier would be 14 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.30,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is the accident of 1988. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.15,000/- x 14 + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.2,40,000/-.
8. The rate of interest will have to be 9% and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in FAFO No.199 of 2017 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court, time and again, will ensure for the benefit of the appellants and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court.
10. I am in agreement with counsel for the respondents that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending, the rate of interest requires to be decreased.
11. 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. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.
13. This Court is thankful to both the counsel to see that this very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 LN Tripathi