Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 316 (ALL)

GAJRAJ SINGH v. PAWAN KUMAR

2018-02-06

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, IRSHAD ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This first appeal from order has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 8.11.2011 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 389/08 filed by the claimants/appellants for awarding a sum of Rs. 8,70,000/- as compensation for death of their son in a road accident which has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- with 6% interest has been awarded as compensation to them by the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are that son of the claimants was coming from Delhi to Aligarh alongwith his friends in Maruti car and while he reached Hardaspur Bhatta (brick kiln), P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh, a tempo bearing registration No. UP 81-W-9372, by rash and negligent driving, collided with the Maruti car in which son of the claimants was seriously injured due to which he was initially admitted in Malkhan Singh District Hospital and thereafter he was got admitted in Jain Medical College, Aligarh and due to seriousness of his position, he was subsequently admitted at Batra Hospital, Delhi and during the course of treatment, he died on 21.6.2008. The deceased was aged about 19 years and was a student of Senior Secondary School, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. His future was very bright and the entire family was dependent upon him. In the claim petition, the parents claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- for the expenses on the treatment of their deceased son and damages of Rs. 8,70,000/- with 12 % interest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and order submitted that the Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in applying the multiplier taking into consideration the age of the parents and relied upon ‘Managing Director Banglore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarvo Jamma’ 2008 (2) TAC 756, that for an application of multiplier, the age of the deceased is relevant for consideration of application of multiplier. 5. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased Ved Prakash was a meritorious student of class XIIth. 5. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased Ved Prakash was a meritorious student of class XIIth. Thus, by not awarding future prospects, the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law and relied upon a judgment of ‘Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another’ 2014 AIR SCW 6507 and the third submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal in utter disregard of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court has erred in awarding Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 2000/- under the conventional heads which is so meagre. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 61 (8) of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2014 (4) TAC 673 (SC), has fixed Rs. 15,000/- under each of the conventional heads namely funeral expenses and loss of estate. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned judgment and has awarded just compensation to the claimant/appellant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned judgment and award and other material on record. 8. The deceased Ved Prakash was pursuing his studies in class XIIth and was a meritorious student having a very bright future and in case he could have gone in any of the branch of studies like B.Tech. M.B.B.S or Civil Services, then he could have served his family in the best way on the basis of income of his salary. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another’ 2014 AIR SCW 6507, held that the notional income in such matters should be Rs. 25,000/- per month. Thus, taking into consideration the view taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, we ascertain the future income of the deceased Ved Prakash to be Rs. 15,000/- per month in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. The deceased Ved Prakash was below 40 years of age, then he could have been awarded amount of future prospects at the rate of 50% of the established income fixed by the Tribunal or this Court. Thus, we provide the future prospect to the claimant/appellants at the rate of 50% of the established income of the deceased. 10. 9. The deceased Ved Prakash was below 40 years of age, then he could have been awarded amount of future prospects at the rate of 50% of the established income fixed by the Tribunal or this Court. Thus, we provide the future prospect to the claimant/appellants at the rate of 50% of the established income of the deceased. 10. On the point of application of multiplier in the present case, the consideration is based upon the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the parents as has been held in the cases of ‘Managing Director Banglore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarvo Jamma’ (supra) and Muuna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC). This view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others’ (supra). 11. The age of the deceased Ved Prakash at the time of death was 19 years. Thus, in view of judgment ‘Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)’, multiplier of 18 is applicable. 12. In regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for payment of conventional heads, the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in paragraph 61 (viii), has held as under: “(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 13. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get the payment under the conventional head as Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. 14. In view of the above, claimants/appellants are entitled to get the amount under the heads referred as under: 15. In view of the above, we allow the instant first appeal from order by increasing the compensation from Rs. 1,65,550/- to Rs. 24,60,000/-. The increased amount shall carry the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment. 16. In view of the above, we allow the instant first appeal from order by increasing the compensation from Rs. 1,65,550/- to Rs. 24,60,000/-. The increased amount shall carry the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, we modify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 8.11.2011 by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 389 of 2008. 17. We allow the appeal to the extent referred to hereinabove. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment as indicated above within a period of one month to the appellants on 7% simple interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal.