Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 919 of 2007 Appellant :- Suraj Prasad And Another Respondent :- M/S Delhi Karnal Roadways And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Prakash
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 26.9.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 205 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs.3,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%.
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 appellant that the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- per month 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. He was bachelor and was survived by his parents. It is submitted the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased.
5. It is submitted that the deceased being 20 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable would be 18.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the income which has not been proved cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is the submission of the counsel for the respondent.
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 namely 9% and it should be at the rate of 7% on the enhanced amount and the amount which has already been awarded.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased has rightly been assesed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 3000/- per month namely Rs.36,000/- per year. To which as the deceased was 20 years of age, 40% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would come to Rs.36,000 + 14,400 = 50,400/- out of which 1/2 requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased was a bachelor and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.25,200/- As the deceased was in the age bracket of 15-25 years, the applicable multiplier would be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that Rs.40,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2000. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. (25200 x 18) +40,000 = 5,13,000/-.
9. I am unable to accept the submission of counsel for the respondent though the Rules are made applicable, the later decision of the Apex Court will govern the situation as 21 years have elapsed from the date the Rules were framed and the Second Schedule has been held to be unworkable as per the decision of the Apex Court.
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 and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. 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 is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 DKS