Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.2206 of 2005
Appellant :- Munna And Another
Respondent :- U.P. Road Transport Corporation Counsel for Appellant :- Sharve Singh,A.L. Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 14.8.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, in MACP No.583 of 1996, awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- with 10% interest.
3. The accident having occurred is not in dispute. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has not filed any appeal or cross-objection meaning thereby they have accepted the findings of the Tribunal.
4. The appellants are the parents of the minor child, who died in the accident because of rash and negligent driving of the bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 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. In this case, the Tribunal has granted Rs.65,000/- as compensation with 10% interest from 1.8.1994. The claimant had Rs.3,00,000/- with 18% rate of interest for the demise of their 5 year old son Rizwan.
5. 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/-. The learned Advocate has relied on the following citations:-
(i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anwar Ali and another, 2003 (3) TAC 12 (All.);
(ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Kumar and others, 2007 ACJ 1466;
(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Raj Bahadur and another, 2002 (3) TAC 409 (All.) and has submitted that compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- be awarded.
6. 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."
7. 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/- with 9% rate of interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the judgment of the Tribunal and 4% thereafter.
8. 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.
9. This Court is thankful to both the counsels appearing for the parties.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Irshad