Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 980 of 1996 Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- United India Insurance Co.Ltd.And Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.K.Porwal
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. This is claimants appeal filed in the year 1996. Notices have already been issued to the respondents way back in the year 1997. They are deemed to be served.
2. Heard Shri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants.
3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 31.8.1996, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah/IV-Additional District Judge, Etawah (herein after referred to as "Tribunal") in MACP No.221 of 1990, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellants herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.
5. Brief facts as they are culled out from the record are that the accident took place on 13.11.1990. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- for the death of the deceased. The deceased was riding a bicycle when he was returning, a jeep bearing No.MMY-8879 dashed him. The respondents were held negligent for the accident and the said finding has attained finality as they are not before this Court. Insurance Company has absented itself for 22 years and it is not known whether they have brought in challenge to the said judgment or not. The claimants are the son of Late Kailash Narain Tripathi. The Tribunal has held them to be legal representatives of the deceased, who was aged about 60 years at the time of accident. Even if the age of the deceased as considered by the Tribunal was 61 years, he was earning Rs.2226/- per month. He was a teacher by profession before and he retired. This is finding of fact and it has been held by the Tribunal that he was earning only Rs.500/- and that is how granted Rs.25,000/-, as compensated. The accident occurred on 13.11.1990 and therefore, to show that amount for no liability is granted as in the year of accident, the amount payable under Section 140 of the Act was Rs.25,000/-, which was amended with effect from 14.11.1994.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under no fault liability under Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and nothing has been awarded for the consortium and other heads.
7. This takes this Court to next question about multiplier and consortium. Even if his income is to be taken as Rs.1,000/- per month, which would have been Rs.1200/- x 5 x 1/2 = Rs.3,000/-, and the same is also not granted.
8. It is submitted that the deceased being 61 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 5 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income, which has not been proved, cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that no additional amount under the head of future prospects has to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.2,000/- per month, namely Rs.24,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 61 years of age, 40% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), which would come to (Rs.24,000/- x 1/2) x 5 + Rs. 30,000 = Rs.90,000/-.
11. The rate of interest will have to be 9% and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in FAFO No.199 of 2017 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court, time and again, will ensure for the benefit of the appellants and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court.
12. I am in agreement with counsel for the respondents that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending, the rate of interest requires to be decreased.
13. 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 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.
15. This Court is thankful to both the counsel to see that this very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 LN Tripathi