1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.F.O. No2213 of 2017 and Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.F.O. No2496 of 2017.
2. These appeals have been filed respectively by the Insurance Company and the claimants being aggrieved of the award dated 30.03.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Aligarh in M.A.C.P. No.270 of 2015.
3. The ground on which Insurance Company has filed its appeal is false implication of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.UP 81 AF 6989 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. It is submitted that accident took place on 08.02.2015 and FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle, but later on in connivance with the owner driver of the truck, and on their admission, accident has been accepted by the learned Tribunal and impugned award has been passed.
4. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this matter was referred to a Special Investigation Team of the U.P. Police to investigate into factum of such false implication, but fairly submits that no conclusive report has been submitted by the S.I.T., as per his instructions given by the Insurance Company.
5. Sri Ram Singh, on the other hand, submits that deceased was a salaried employee aged about 23 years who was working as a security officer in a Steaker Facility Management Service Private Ltd. drawing a salary of Rs.14,007/- per month and, therefore, Tribunal should have added 50% towards future prospects in the light of the law laid in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680. Similarly, it should have awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the head of non pecuniary compensation against a sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Similarly, Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 18 in place of 17 as has been applied by it.
6. As far as issue of false implication is concerned, learned Tribunal has framed issue no.1 in this regard and has decided in favour of the claimants and against Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the evidence of P.W.-2-Sunil Sharma eyewitness of the incident. It has also recorded a finding on the basis of the investigation that implicated vehicle was involved in the accident, which has been corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses. Even a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and such charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle in any competent court of law. Therefore, the plea of false implication is not substantiated and on this ground appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to fail and is dismissed.
7. As far as contention of the claimants is concerned, learned Tribunal has accepted after deduction of taxes etc. income of the deceased to be Rs.13,751/- per month. Deceased is survived by three claimants, therefore, 1/3 deduction is to be made as has been made by learned Claims Tribunal, but learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17 which will be in its place that of 18 taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.19,80,144/-(nineteen lakhs eighty thousand and one hundred fourty four). Over and above which, claimants will be entitled to 50% future prospects, inasmuch as, deceased was a salaried employee taking total pecuniary compensation to Rs.29,70,216/-(twenty nine lakhs seventy thousand and two hundred sixteen). Over and above which, claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the head of non pecuniary compensation. Thus, total compensation will come out to Rs.30,40,216/-(thirty lakhs fourty thousand and two hundred sixteen) against a sum of Rs.18,85,136/-(eighteen lakhs eighty five thousand and one hundred thirty six) awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, there will be an enhancement to the tune of Rs.11,55,080/-(eleven lakhs fifty five thousand and eighty) to which claimants will be entitled.
8. This additional amount will also carry interest @7% from the date of filing of the claim petition and shall be appropriated in the same ratio as has been done by the learned Claims Tribunal.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, if any, amount deposited by the insurance company, in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, be remitted to the claims tribunal to be adjusted from the claim amount.
10. This prayer is allowed. Registry is directed to do the needful.
11. In above terms, appeal is disposed off.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Ashutosh