Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3546 of 2008
Appellant :- Smt. Sushma Devi And Others
Respondent :- Farooq Ali And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Srivastava Ratan
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K. Srivastava Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 4.08.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 296 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.3,16,700/- 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.28,800/- per annum which is unjust even in the year of accident. He was 35 years of age. He was survived by four dependents. He was a mason and agriculturist. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be disturbed and the amount cannot be refused for future prospects of deceased.
5. It is submitted that the deceased being 35 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 16 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
6. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Srivastava Ratan, 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 Setthi and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017. It has not been shown by counsel for the respondent that the said amount cannot be enhanced. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is submitted by counsel for the respondent.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.2000/- per month namely Rs.24,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 35 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.24,000 + 9,600 = 33,600/- out of which 1/4th requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.25,200/- rounded up to Rs.25,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16 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 2002. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 25,000 x 16 +40,000 = Rs.4,40,000/-.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Shubhankar