Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 992 of 1996 Appellant :- Smt.Vidya Devi And Others Respondent :- Vijay Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- M.Jain Counsel for Respondent :- P.K. Biswas,Anupam Shukla,Shesh Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
This appeal is of the year 1996 and it has been listed on the board for orders, hearing and disposal.
I have heard Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. None appears on behalf of respondents, even in revised call.
This first appeal from order has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 24.8.1996, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I-Additional District Judge, Firozabad in Motor Accident Claim Case No.83 of 1990, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The claimants by means of this appeal, had claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.60,000/- with 12% rate of interest for the death of deceased, who was 45 years of age at the time of accident. The deceased, according to the Tribunal, was earning Rs.2500/- per month, but the Tribunal has considered that he was not less than 50 years of age and held that his monthly contribution towards his family was only Rs.1000/- per month after deduction of his personal expenses. The Tribunal has considered the compensation after multiplying by 5 holding his annual income to be Rs.12,000/- and granted a lump sum of Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest per annum rate of interest from with effect from 18.2.1995. Hence, the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has been brought under challenge.
The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellants herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has considered Rs.30,000/- per annum, which is unjust 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 survived by 7 dependents. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses also requires to be disturbed and future prospects as per National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050 should be added. It is submitted that the deceased was wrongly assessed as more than 60 years and wrongly granted a multiplier of 5.
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. It is submitted that the tribunal has not committed any error.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.2500/- per month, namely Rs.30,000/- per year to which as the deceased was more than 50 years of age and self employed, 10% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), which would come to Rs.33,000/-, out of which 1/4 requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.24750/- rounded up to Rs.25,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 51-55 years, the applicable multiplier would be 10 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.30,000 is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 1990. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.25,000/- x 10 + Rs.30000 = Rs.2,80,000/-.
The rate of interest will have to be 9% and I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in FAFO No.199 of 2017 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court, time and again, will ensure for the benefit of the appellants and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court.
I am in agreement with counsel for the respondents that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending, the rate of interest requires to be decreased.
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.
In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree is modified to the above extent.
This Court is thankful to both the counsel to see that this very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 LN Tripathi