Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 199 (UTT)

Chhote Lal v. Prabhjeet Singh

2019-03-14

ALOK SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The facts and questions of law in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.02.2007 Harpal Singh, Gajendra Singh, Harkesh Singh, Surendra Singh and Raghuveer Singh were going on a vehicle namely Scorpio bearing registration no. UDK 0026730 (T) to Lucknow. This vehicle was driven by Harpal Singh slowly on its side. At 06.00 a.m. when they reached village Godhana, Tehsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur, then one truck coming from Sitapur bearing registration no. HR 29 GA 1211 being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Scorpio, as a result of collision, Harpal Singh, Surendra Singh and Harkesh Singh died on the spot while Gajendra Singh Chaudhan was taken to hospital where he died during the course of treatment. Claim petitions no. 114 and 119 of 2007 were filed by legal heirs of Gajendra Singh Chauhan and Harpal Singh respectively before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in favour of the claimants against New India Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved, claimants have filed present appeals for enhancement. 3. I have heard Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the claimants, Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for New India Insurance Company and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for ICICI Lombard General Insurance and perused the record. 4. Learned Tribunal, in both the claim petitions, has granted the compensation assuming notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 5. Although claimants of Gajendra Singh Chauhan and Harpal Singh, have claimed monthly income of Gajendra Singh Chauhan and Harpal Singh as Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- per month respectively but without any cogent proof. In my considered opinion, to find out the notional income, the Tribunal must take into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the State Government for the unskilled labour. Moreover, under the MNREGA Scheme, 20 days employment is mandatory to be provided to every adult residing in a village @ Rs. 150 per day. If Rs 150 per day is assessed as notional income of a daily wager, then his monthly notional income would be Rs. 4,500/- per month, therefore, monthly notional income of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs 4500/- per month and is hereby assessed as Rs. 4500/- per month for each of the deceased. 6. 150 per day. If Rs 150 per day is assessed as notional income of a daily wager, then his monthly notional income would be Rs. 4,500/- per month, therefore, monthly notional income of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs 4500/- per month and is hereby assessed as Rs. 4500/- per month for each of the deceased. 6. Considering the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2012 (1) UD 427 , in my considered opinion, there would be enhancement of 20% in the income of deceased, therefore, their monthly income would have come to Rs. 4500 + 20% of Rs 4500 i.e. Rs 900/- = Rs. 5400/-. 7. Now, let me examine what compensation should be paid to the claimants of Gajendra Singh. Tribunal has deducted 1/3 from the annum income of deceased treating it as personal expenses of deceased whereas in my opinion, since four persons were dependent on Gajendra Singh, therefore, 1/5 should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Claimants mentioned the age of Gajendra Singh 38 years but in the postmortem report age of Gajendra Singh was mentioned as 45 years. Even after considering the age of deceased as 45 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 whereas in my opinion, multiplier of “13” would be appropriate. As calculated above, monthly income of deceased was Rs. 5400/- per month. After deducting 1/5 towards personal expenses, his monthly income would have come to Rs. 4,320/- and his annual income would have come to Rs. 51,840/- and by applying multiplier of 13, amount of compensation would be Rs. 6,73,920/-. Over and above, claimants are also entitled to get Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of state, as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appellants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 6,80,920/- 8. Now, let me examine what compensation should be paid to the claimant of Harpal Singh. Harpal Singh was unmarried boy. His parents were dependent on him. Claimants mentioned the age of Harpal Singh as 23 years but in the postmortem report age of Harpal Singh was mentioned as 30 years. 6,80,920/- 8. Now, let me examine what compensation should be paid to the claimant of Harpal Singh. Harpal Singh was unmarried boy. His parents were dependent on him. Claimants mentioned the age of Harpal Singh as 23 years but in the postmortem report age of Harpal Singh was mentioned as 30 years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 9 on the basis of age of parents whereas in my opinion, considering the age of deceased Harpal as 30 years, multiplier of 17 would be appropriate as per the Motor Vehicles Act. As calculated above, monthly income of deceased was Rs. 5,400/- per month. The Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas in my opinion, since parents were dependent on him, therefore, deduction of 1/3 would be appropriate. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, his monthly income would have come to Rs. 3,600/- and his annual income would have come to Rs. 43,200/- and by applying multiplier of 17, amount of compensation would be Rs. 7,34,400/-. Over and above, claimant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 7,36,400/-. 9. Therefore, appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed. Cross appeals filed by the New India Insurance Company are dismissed. The New India Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,80,920/- and Rs. 7,36,400/- to the claimants/appellants of A.O. Nos. 339 and 14 of 2010 respectively within thirty days from today along with 6% interest per annum from the date claim petition is filed till the date actual payment is made. If entire amount is not paid within 30 days from today, then claimants/appellant shall be entitled to be paid interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 14.04.2019 till the date actual payment is made. 10. Let copy of this judgment be placed in each connected appeal and lower court record be sent back forthwith.