Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 199 of 1987 Appellant :- Smt. Usha Devi Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kr. Ram Chandra Singh,Kr. P.C. Singh,Shyam Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- Sameer Sharma,Arun Kumar Shukla,R.N. Sharma,Vishesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
2. This is an appeal of the year 1987. It has remained pending from 1987 to 2021. Despite the fact that matter preferred by the Insurance company being F.A.F.O. Nos.151 of 1987 and 161 of 1987 got disposed of in the year 2017 and 2013.
3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the decree and award dated 2.12.1986 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.83 of 1982 awarding a sum of Rs.56,000/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum as compensation.
4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his wife, two minor children and mother, and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/3 which is not in dispute. The multiplier has to be applied would be 15 as he was aged 38 years.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 27.2.1982 causing death of Ram Lal Singh who was 38 years of age and left behind him, wife, two minor children and mother. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.930/- per month. The deceased was in service in U.P. State Electricity Distribution Division-III and was getting Rs.930/- per month. The tribunal has erred itself in not considering the income of the deceased and has deducted amount which he could not deduct holding that they were personal benefits to the deceased. We cannot concur with the tribunal as far as holding that the deceased was entitled to that the income was Rs.930/- per month. The income has to be considered to be Rs.930/- would be the income which would be admissible to the family. We are considering to be Rs.930/- per month which we feel is just and proper. The deductions made by the tribunal could not have been made. To which as the deceased was age bracket of 36-40 years, 50% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/3 as the deceased had four persons to feed as two of them are minor.
8. In this backdrop let us see evaluate the income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation would be as follows:
i. Income Rs.930/- p.m.
ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 50% namely Rs.470/- (rounded figure)
iii. Total income : Rs. 930 + 470 = Rs.1400/-
iv. Income after deduction of 1/3 : Rs.933/-
v. Annual income : Rs.933x 12 = Rs.11,196/-
vi. Multiplier applicable : 15 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 36-40 years)
vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 11,196 x 15 = Rs.1,67,940/-
viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs.30,000/-
ix. Total compensation : Rs.1,97,940/-.
9. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.
10. The insurance company has decided to settle the lis. The Apex Court in AIR 2021 SC 3301, Lakkamma & others. v. The Regional Manager M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd & another has accepted the submission of the insurance company that for a period when the appeal is belated. The interest shall not be paid. We will adopt the similar mode from the date of the judgment till the delay is condoned, interest be not granted.
11. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount along with additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the decision in the claim petition from the period when the matter remained pending, there shall be no interest. 6% from the date of the condonation of delay till the amount is deposited, as the insurance company has decided the settle the dispute interest at rate of 6% is granted. The amount to be deposited as per the judgments of this Court in F.A.F.O. No.161 of 1987 (O.I.Co.Ltd. v. Smt. Usha Devi and others) decided on 24.8.2017 and F.A.F.O. No. 151 of 1987 (O.I.C. v. R.K. Jain) decided on 7.5.2013. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
12. No amount should be kept in fixed deposit as enough time was left and parties are major.
13. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that the matter is disposed of.
14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Ashutosh Pandey