Heard Sri Zulfiquar Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company and Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
Heard on Civil Misc. Substitution Application As this application is not opposed, same is allowed. Let necessary correction be carried out in the memo of appeal during the course of the day.
Order on Appeal
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of the award dated 16.03.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Allahabad in Claim Case No. 515 of 2015, on the ground that in an accident which took place on 28.05.2015, income of the deceased, who was working as a driver in Mumbai, has been accepted at Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month, which is drastically lower. It is also submitted that under the non-pecuniary head only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees) has been awarded, which needs to be enhanced. Further, it is admitted that 50% amount has been added towards future prospects, which needs to be toned down, taking into consideration the age of the deceased and nature of occupation of the deceased at the time of the accident. It is also submitted that similarly, multiplier is to be reduced and computation is to be made.
2. Sri Zulfiquar Ali also submits that driver of the taxi is to be considered as skilled labourer as per the decision of Supreme Court in case of Minu Rout and Another vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 695, wherein para 20, it has been accepted that driver is a skilled job. Similarly, is the ratio of the law laid down in case of Kala Devi and Others vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 771.
3. There is no cogent evidence on record that deceased was a regular taxi driver at Mumbai. Tribunal has discarded said evidence. This finding of the tribunal does not call for any interference, however, the fact of the matter is that on the date of the accident, even minimum wages for an unskilled labourer were to the tune of Rs. 6,734.95/- (six thousand seven hundred thirty four rupees and ninety five paise) per month or Rs. 80,819/- (eighty thousand eight hundred nineteen rupees) per annum. 1/3rd deduction is to be made towards the living expenses of the deceased, taking annual dependency of the family to Rs. 53,879/- (fifty three thousand eight hundred seventy nine rupees). Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased to be 35 years, therefore, there will be an addition of 40% towards future prospects, taking total dependency to Rs. 75,430.60/- (seventy five thousand four hundred thirty rupees and sixty paise). For the age bracket of 31-35 years, multiplier of 16 has been prescribed in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs. 12,06,890/- (twelve lakhs six thousand eight hundred ninety rupees). Over and above of which, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand rupees) under the head of non-pecuniary compensation, taking total compensation to Rs. 12,76,890/- (twelve lakhs seventy six thousand eight hundred ninety rupees) against a sum of Rs. 6,27,000/- (six lakhs twenty seven thousand rupees) awarded by learned claims tribunal. Therefore, there will be an addition of Rs. 6,49,890/- (six lakhs forty nine thousand eight hundred ninety rupees), to which claimants will be entitled in addition to the amount awarded by learned tribunal and this additional amount will also carry interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded by learned tribunal.
4. In above terms, appeal is disposed off.
Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Vikram/-