Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2134 of 2008
Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Guddi & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P.Verma,Mayank
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by United India Insurance Company Ltd.- appellant, being aggrieved by judgment / award dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Mathura in MACT Case No. 318.
2. This appeal is dismissed on a very short ground. Facts are not necessary as except for the challenge to the compensation and the amount of compensation , no other ground has been urged and the only issue required to be decided is compensation awarded by Tribunal.
3. It is rightly pointed by Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in granting the multiplier of 17 instead of 14. However, the factual scenario shows that nothing has been granted under the head of future prospects though the deceased had a permanent job.
4. As against this Sri B.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for claimant states that as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LAWsuit(SC) 1093 nothing has been awarded under the head of future prospect and, therefore, under the principles of just compensation, the multiplier of three years meaning thereby which has been considered as 100 per day which means Rs.3000/- per month , multiplied by 12 which comes to Rs.36,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,08,000/-, 1/3rd from the income was deducted and, therefore, in all Rs.76,000/- had to be adjusted but in final analysis of the matter, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is not just compensation.
5. In view of the above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The Insurance Company shall deposit the rest of the amount with the interest as specified by the Tribunal. A further fact is also to be mentioned that though the nominal rate of interest in the year 2008 would have been 9% the Tribunal has granted only 8% which also will go to show that additional multiplier of 3 is already compensated and if he calculate the compensation as per judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) the quantum would be more to be paid to the claimant.
6. Record, if any, be sent forthwith to the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Mukesh