Court No. - 6
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3619 of 2018 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Chandra Devi And 6 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court, Court No. 2, District Mathura in M.A.C.P. No. 390 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that the statement of PW-2, who was the eyewitness, was considered by the Tribunal while fixing the liability against the appellant-insurance company, whereas the vehicle number was not informed / given by the informer while lodging the first information report.
Learned Tribunal has considered the statement of the eyewitness being PW-2, namely, Chandan Singh and this Court also noticed that PW-2 has informed the claimants about the accident, where he was present and immediately rushed to inform the claimant no. 1, PW-1 Smt. Chandra Devi.
Chandan Singh and one Amar Singh son of Mewa Ram both resident of Shahpur informed about accident to the claimant no. 1, wife of the victim-deceased.
I have perused the judgment of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided the issue no. 1 after due consideration of the evidence as well as the statement recorded by the Tribunal.
There is no inconsistencies pointed out in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, hence in my view the same need no interference.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding the issue no. 4, namely, how much compensation is to be awarded to the claimants and from whom the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion by determining the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month and the same is multiplied determining the age of the victim at the time of accident as 44 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of the provision of Section 220A (2), which provides the procedure of deduction for personal and living expenses of a deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that sub- Clause (ii) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 220A provides as follows:-
"(ii) The deduction towards personal and living expenses of a married person deceased shall be 1/3rd where dependent family members are 2 to 3 in number, 1/4th where dependent family members are 4 to 6 in number 1/5th where dependent family members are more than 6 in number."
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the claim petition admittedly the age of the claimant no. 2, Mohit, son of deceased is admittedly shown as 14 years and and apart from Mohit there are three other dependents (children), whose age are in between 9 to 5 years, therefore, according the learned counsel for the appellant while applying the provision of Sub-Section 2(ii) of Section 220A the Tribunal has not justified in arriving at the conclusion by applying the deduction of 1/4th whereas it should have been 1/3rd.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the claimants, Sri Anand Kumar Dube, the appeal is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to re- determine the deduction by considering the provisions of Section 220A and pass an appropriate modified order after providing the opportunity to all parties.
It is made clear that no other issues are pressed before this Court.
The appeal is disposed of.
Any amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal within two weeks and the same shall be duly accounted for/adjusted while making the payment.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 SK Srivastava