Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 405 of 1991 Appellant :- Onkar Singh and others Respondent :- Mukesh Babu and others Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- K.S.Amist
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. By way of this appeal, brothers of the deceased who substituted his parents, challenge the judgment and award dated 6.2.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 221 of 1986 awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation.
3. Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the appeal on the grounds that the accident had taken place in the year when the old Act i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in vogue but no amount under the head of future loss of income was granted though the law was well settled even in those days.
4. The aforesaid submission has been vehemently objected by Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the respondent as according to him the Tribunal had awarded just compensation as per the evidence led before it.
5. He has further submitted that the substituted legal heirs of the parents cannot get nothing more than the amount under the head of no fault liability and he has relied on the decision in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Limited, AIR 2007 SC 1474. However, the said judgment in Manjuri Bera (Supra) time and again distinguished by this Court holding brother would be legal heir and judgment in Manjuri Bera (Supra) held that married daughter would also entitle to amount under no fault liability.
6. May that as it may be, the quantum will have to be reevaluated. The income of the deceased as it transpires from the judgment itself and as the evidence led was Rs.400/- per month. Sri Madhav Jain has contended that it should be at least Rs.1000/- per month. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the same requires any reconsideration, the said amount cannot be disturbed. Hence, his income namely Rs. 400 x 12 = 4800 per year has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. To which as the deceased was 22 years of age, 40% of his income requires to be added for future loss of income in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 which would bring the figure to Rs.4,800 + 1,920 = 6,720/-. Out of which 1/2 requires to be deducted as personal expenses he was a bachelor, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.3,360/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants are the heirs of the parents of the deceased and fall under Clause II, however, as they have lost their brother, under the head of filial consortium in those days, Rs.30,000/- is granted. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. (3,360 x 18) + 30,000 =90,480/-.
7. 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 4% thereafter till the amount is deposited.
8. It is stated that the award is against the owner of the vehicle, however, as per the recent judgment, the Insurance Company would deposit the said amount within eight weeks from today and recover from the owner if it can prove that there was breach of policy condition under the old Act.
9. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 DKS