Court No. - 33
Reserved on : 4.12.2019 For pronouncement on : 19.12.2019 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 222 of 2007 Appellant :- Ramvir Upadhyaya And Another Respondent :- Delhi Transport Corp. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- M.P. Sarraf,Ramesh Chandra Pal,S.R. Verma,Sudhir Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Vishesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pal, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla holding brief of Sri Vishesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/7th Additional District Judge, Aligarh in M.A.C.P. No.235 of 1999, awarding a sum of Rs.74,000/- with 9% interest.
3. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of a minor child of 15 years who died in the accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DTC bus being bus number DL-1 PA-3612. The accident having occurred is not in dispute. The respondent herein has not filed any appeal or cross- objection meaning thereby they have accepted the findings of the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award is bad and relied on decision of this Court and Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this Court in its recent decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows:
"6.Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross- objection is also partly allowed."
5. The judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in Kishan Gopal's case the apex court did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses. The judgment of Mumtaz Ahmad (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case, hence, the award is required to be enhanced and is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-. I am even fortified in my view by the decisions of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anwar Ali and another, 2003 (3) TAC 12 (All.); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Kumar and others, 2007 ACJ 1466; New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Raj Bahadur and another, 2002 (3) TAC 409 (All.).
6. The normal rate of interest after the judgment in Mumtaz Ahmad (Supra) would be 9%, hence, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with 9% rate of interest be paid from the date of filing of claim petition till the judgment of the Tribunal and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited.
7. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree shall stand modified. The additional amount be recalculated with fresh rate of interest and deposited within 12 weeks from today.
8. This Court is thankful to both the counsels appearing for the parties for getting this old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Mukesh