Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2639 of 2009 Appellant :- Smt.Shyama Devi And Others Respondent :- Gurunam Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Krishna Mishra,Lalit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar holding brief of Sri Ram Krishna, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for Insurance Company.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 6.5.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.68 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs.52,000/- with interest at the rate of 7%.
3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has considered Rs.15,000/- per annum as income of the deceased which is unjust even in the year of accident. It is submitted that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be at least twice as he was doing the business of selling wheat and other food grains. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also is requires to be disturbed and the future income of deceased has not been considered.
5. It is submitted that the deceased being 65 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 5 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income which has not been proved hence no fault cannot be found with cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, addition of future prospects is discussed. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 65-70 , the applicable multiplier would be 5 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
7. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that amount requires to be added as per Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and the interest cannot be paid as prayed for and it should be at 9% on the enhanced amount and the amount which has already been awarded.
8. In addition to that Rs.30,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 1999. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 16,000 x 5 +30,000 = 1,10,000/-.
9. The income of the deceased Rs.15,000/- per yer in the year of accident for a person of the age of 65 years is less. The judgment of Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for appellant in RamachandrappaVersus Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,2011 LawSuit(SC) 830 and Laxmi Devi Versus Mohammad Tabbar, 2008 LawSuit(SC) 1191, would not apply to the fact of this case.
10. The rate of interest will have to be enhanced and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court.
11. I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending the rate of interest requires to be decreased.
12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. 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. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
13. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019/Mukesh