Court No. - 34
1. Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1871 of 2001 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd Respondent :- Prahlad Kumar Keserwani And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,N.K.Srivastva.
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Singh
2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1916 of 2001 Appellant :- Prahlad Kumar Kesarwani And Others Respondent :- Jora Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Chandra Gupta, Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :-N.K.Srivastva
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Ram Singh, Advocate for Claimants in both these appeals.
2. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award dated 03.09.2001 passed by Sri A.K. Kaushik, Additional District Judge (Court No. 12)/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in MACP No. 31 of 1996. Appeal No. 1871 of 2001 has been filed by Insurance Company and Appeal No. 1916 of 2001 has been filed by claimants.
3. In Appeal No. 1871 of 2001 Insurance Company raised a dispute with regard to driving licence but their I find that Tribunal has already given liberty to Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from Owner and this issue is squarely covered by judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors, 2001(4) SCC 342. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company after some argument could not dispute that there is no arguable point in this appeal in the light of aforesaid judgment. Appeal No. 1871 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed.
4. In Appeal No. 1916 of 2001 Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing for claimants-appellants, submitted that income of deceased has been assessed only as Rs. 15,000/- per annum though deceased was a student of Class-11th and was a good student, therefore, had a bright future. He placed reliance on a Supreme Court's decision in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another, 2014(3) T.A.C. 5 wherein Tribunal assessed income as Rs. 6,000/- per month which was enhanced by Supreme Court as Rs. 10,000/- per month. A Division Bench of this Court in Gajraj Singh and another vs. Pawan Kumar and another, 2018 (3) T.A.C. 822 has taken notional income of deceased, who was studying in Class-12th, as Rs. 15,000/- per month, in the facts and circumstances of that case.
5. I find that in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi (supra), deceased was a girl of 16 years of age; and in Gajraj Singh and another vs. Pawan Kumar (supra) deceased was 19 years of age. In both judgments findings are recorded that deceased were meritorious students and had a bright future. In the present case also Tribunal has recorded a finding that deceased passed High School examination in First Division and studying in Class-11th. Even if deceased in the present case was not a brilliant student but a good student, he would have a bright future, still Tribunal has given no reason to treat notional income of deceased only at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. This is wholly inadequate and unjust. Since accident is took place on 10.09.1995, in my view, income assessed by Tribunal is clearly on lower side, hence, it would be appropriate to enhance notional income of deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 60,000/- per annum. After deducting dependency of 50%, notional income will come to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. In the light of Supreme Court's judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, 2009(6) SCC 121 multiplier on the age of deceased ought to have been 18. Therefore, total income comes to Rs. 5,40,000/-. The Appeal No. 1916 of 2001, therefore, is partly allowed and judgment and award dated 03.09.2001 is modified accordingly. The amount of compensation paid by Insurance Company shall be recomputed in the light of above modification and would be paid within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 AK