Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Beni Bahadur Singh And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1377 of 2016 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Beni Bahadur Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mehrotra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant.
By means of the present appeal, appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgement and order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No.223 of 2014 whereby, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,57,440/- as compensation to the claimant/respondent no.1.
Claimants/respondent no.1 instituted the claim petition praying for compensation of Rs.30 lac along with 18% interest for the death of one Yogendra Kumar in an accident on 11.11.2012 with Maruti Car No.U.P.-78-CE-0027.
It was pleaded in the claim petition that Yogendra Kumar was going on Motorcycle No.U.P.-70-Y-2964 with one Dhirendra Singh and at about 3.30 PM when motorcycle reached village Pathariyapur highway, it was hit by Maruti Car No.U.P.-78-CE- 0027 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') from behind as a result of which, Yogendra Kumar sustained injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Allahabad on 14.11.2012. It was further pleaded in the claim petition that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.
In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the Tribunal only on the issue no.2 with respect to contributory negligence of the driver of motorcycle and the finding regarding the quantification of compensation.
Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was negligence of driver of the motorcycle in the accident and the finding of the Tribunal in respect of sole negligence of driver of offending vehicle is illegal and not sustainable. Further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that Tribunal has erred in awarding 50% towards future prospect inasmuch as, deceased was self employed and claimant/respondent is entitled to 40% towards future prospect.
He further contends that the age of the deceased was 28 years and, therefore, Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. He further contends that deceased was bachelor and, therefore, Tribunal should have deducted half towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of negligence of driver of motorcycle is concerned, the same is concluded by the judgement of this Court in F.A.F.O. No.3154 of 2015 arising out of the same accident wherein this Court affirms the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence of Maruti Car in the accident. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of contributory negligence is misconceived and is rejected.
As far as the quantification of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant may be right in his submission that Tribunal should have awarded 40% towards future prospect and multiplier of 18 should have been applied and half should have been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased for computing the compensation, but in the present case, Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount towards compensation and Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards expenses incurred by the claimant/respondent no.1 in conveyance and travelling charges of the attendants of the deceased in looking after the deceased during the period of his treatment. Had the Tribunal awarded correct amount under the aforesaid heads, the amount of compensation would have been the same.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in respect of quantification of compensation.
For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Sattyarth
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Beni Bahadur Singh And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 February, 2019
Judges
  • Saral Srivastava
Advocates
  • Sushil Kumar Mehrotra