Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 331 of 2000 Appellant :- Smt.Saliman And Others Respondent :- United India Assurance Co.Ltd.
Counsel for Appellant :- Bharat Bhushan Paul,Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Mehrotra Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Archit Mehrotra holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 3.12.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIth Additional District Judge, Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 142 of 1995 (Smt. Saliman and others Vs. Uma Shankar and others) awarding a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as compensation to the claimant.
3. It is submitted by Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants that multiplier given is 10 it should have been 13 as per judgement of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as the age of the deceased was in dispute and the Tribunal has considered his age as 50 years even if we consider his age as 50 years, and therefore, the multiplier should have been 13 and not 10 he was survived by more than five dependents hence the deduction should have been 1/3rd and the amount under the head of non pecuniary damages should be Rs.17,000/-.
4. The second ground is that the income taken as Rs.1,200/- per month is on the lower side it should be Rs.2,000/- at least per month which is opposed by Sri Archit Mehrotra holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent and submitted that it was a claim of the year 1995, it was not proved that the income was Rs.2,000/- per month and the Tribunal has given cogent reasons and in the year 1995, the concept of future prospects was not there, hence not considered nor granted. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that interest @ 18% should be granted whereas Sri Archit Mehrotra submits that interest @ 9% would be just and proper.
5. I have considered the submission of the counsel for the parites, the income of the deceased in the year 1999 for the business he was carried out would be Rs.2000/- to which 10% can be added as he was in the age group of 50. The submission of Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants that 25% will be added can be exceeded to as he was in the age group of 40-
50 and was self-employed. Hence, the amount would be Rs.2,500/- per month out of which 1/5th will have to be deducted as they were more than five dependents. Hence the family would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000 x 12 x 13 which comes to Rs.3,12,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- under non pecuniary damages head requires to be added. Hence, the family would be entitled to Rs.3,62,000/- with 9% rate of interest from the date of claim petition till the judgment and 6% thereafter. The order that the amount be paid with interest only on default cannot be sustained and has to be rejected.
6. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount if yet not ben deposited be deposited within 12 weeks from today. The difference between the amount deposited and to be deposited be calculated and deposited to the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall not keep any amount in fixed deposit and shall disburse the entire amounts to the claimant as 23 years have already elapsed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019/Shubhankar