Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2341 (ALL)

Shahjad Ali v. Pawan Kumar Singh and another

2013-09-18

RAJIV SHARMA, SATISH CHANDRA

body2013
Rajiv Sharma & Satish Chandra,JJ. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claiment, for the enhancement of the compensation, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Claim Petition NO.70 of 2008 (Shahjad Ali Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh & another), where a compensation of Rs.1,05,308/- was awarded against the opposite party No.2 i.e. New India Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2007, at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant-claimant was going with two daughters on his motorcycle. When he reached near Babhanmai bridge, Raniganj, a jeep bearing number U.P. 33 B/5051 was coming from the opposite direction, whose driver was driving it carelessly, rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle which resulted serious injuries to all the three persons and later the claimant-appellant became disable. The driver of the jeep ran away with the jeep towards Raniganj. Immediately, an FIR was lodged. The claimant-appellant has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, who after examining the entire evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,05,308/-. The Tribunal observed that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver and jeep driver. So, the liability was fixed in the ratio of 25% and 75%. Being aggrieved, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, Sri J.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation is meager one. He also submits that the disability was 50% but notional income was taken @ 15000/- per year. So, he made a request that the compensation may kindly be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the New India Insurance Company Ltd. has justified the impugned award. He submits that on the motorcycle, there were three passengers. So, it is the sole negligence on the part of the claimant and insurance company is not entitled to pay any compensation. On the specific query from the Bench, he submits that the Commander Jeep in question was insured with the opposite party no.2. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal after examining the site plan and witnesses observed that it was a contributory accident. On the specific query from the Bench, he submits that the Commander Jeep in question was insured with the opposite party no.2. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal after examining the site plan and witnesses observed that it was a contributory accident. So, the liability was fixed in the ratio of 25% and 75% between the vehicles. In the absence of any adverse material, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal, so the same is hereby sustained. 6. From the record, it appears that the Commander Jeep was insured with the opposite party no.2-New India Insurance Company and on the date of accident, Police was alive. Both the drivers were holding valid driving licence. 7. In the instant case, the Tribunal took the notional income @ Rs.15,000/- per annum. Out of which, 1/3rd was deducted for personal use. But fact remains that in the case of Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another, (2008) 2 TAC 394 SC, notional income was fixed @ Rs.3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Out of which 1/3rd will have to be deducted for personal use. Thus, the income for the purpose of computation comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal by looking the age of the victim, which was 45 years, has rightly applied the multiplier of 13. Thus, the amount comes to Rs.24000 x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-. The disability is 50%, so it will have to come Rs.3,12,000÷2= Rs.1,56,000. Out of it, 25% liability towards the motorcycle will have to be deducted. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.1,56,000 - Rs.39,000 = Rs.1,17,000. In addition, the appellant-claimant is also entitled the reimbursement of the expenses pertaining to the treatment, attendant and loss of income. The same was already awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the amount comes to Rs.1,74,410/-. The appellant-claimant will be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,74,410/- from the New India Insurance Company-respondent no.2 along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. 8. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining/full amount, with the concerned Tribunal within a period of one month. The appellant-claimant will be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,74,410/- from the New India Insurance Company-respondent no.2 along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. 8. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining/full amount, with the concerned Tribunal within a period of one month. The Registry of this Court is also directed to transmit the amount/record, if any, deposited in this Court, within a period of one month to the concerned Tribunal, who is further directed to disburse the amounts, in terms of the award within a period of three months. 9. The impugned judgment and order is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is partly allowed. _____________