Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2620 (ALL)

Siddhant Sharma v. U. P. S. R. T. C.

2019-11-21

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar holding brief of Sri Swapnil Kumar for the appellant and Sri S.C. Mishra for the respondents. 2. The deceased, who was a practicing Advocate died in the year 2006. 3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 11.8.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Petition No. 142 of 2007 awarding a sum of Rs.4,03,048/- with interest at the rate of 4 per cent. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was 45 years of age, his income can be considered to be Rs. 12,000/-per month. Learned Counsel has heavily relied on the following decisions to bring home this submission: (I) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018, decided on 18.9.2018; (II) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Indiro Devi and others, (2018) 7 SCC 715 ; and (III) Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Chhotey Lal and others, 2008 (4) AWC 3252 . His income-tax return is at Annexure-37-C. For financial year 2005-06 i.e. the year just prior to the sad demise because of the accidental injuries, which was Rs.1,58,500/-per year hence his monthly income can be stated to be Rs. 12,000/-per month to which as the deceased being below the age of 50 years, 25% will have to be added as loss of future income. 5. As he was survived by his son and his mother and as the first divorced wife has not come before this Court, there is no question of disbursement to her. 6. The multiplier would be 14. The medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal are Rs.15,000/- only. He died on 9.12.2006 meaning thereby he was in hospital for 15 days. The medical expenses as per the bills from document 34-C is Rs.4,68,266/- and the Tribunal has not granted the same. The learned Tribunal was never bound by second schedule as it was petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this connection, a judgment has been delivered by Division Bench in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Smt. Nisha Dubey and 2 others, First Appeal From Order No.3159 of 2013, decided on 9.12.2016. Hence, the said finding is erroneous and perverse and the said amount would be admissible. In this connection, a judgment has been delivered by Division Bench in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Smt. Nisha Dubey and 2 others, First Appeal From Order No.3159 of 2013, decided on 9.12.2016. Hence, the said finding is erroneous and perverse and the said amount would be admissible. I am fortified with my view in the aforesaid judgment. 7. The trapping of Code of Civil Procedure should not be very stringently followed. In this regard, there are several judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court in Sebastiani Lakra and other Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, AIR 2018 SC 5034 and the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 3159 of 2013 (Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Nisha Dubey and 2 Others) decided on 9.12.2016, Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 190 and in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 . In that view of the matter, the medical expenses would be admissible to the claimants. 8. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- only for love and affection. The young boy has lost his father hence under the head of love and affection and loss of estate and funeral charges, Rs. 50,000/- is granted and Rs.20,000/- for his mother. 9. Sri Mishra appearing for the UPSRTC states that the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and the Tribunal has mulcted the liability on Oriental Insurance Company. The difference of amount will have to be deposited jointly and severely. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased would be Rs.12,000/-per month namely Rs.1,44,000/-per year, to which as the deceased was 45 years of age, 25% of the income i.e. Rs. 36,000/- requires to be added as future income of the deceased in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would bring the annul figure to Rs.1,44,000 + 36,000 = Rs.1,80,000/-. The deduction of 1/3rd would be just and proper. Hence, after deduction of 1/3rd, the annual datum figure available to the family would be Rs.1,20,000/-. 36,000/- requires to be added as future income of the deceased in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would bring the annul figure to Rs.1,44,000 + 36,000 = Rs.1,80,000/-. The deduction of 1/3rd would be just and proper. Hence, after deduction of 1/3rd, the annual datum figure available to the family would be Rs.1,20,000/-. As the deceased was 45 years of age, the applicable multiplier would be 14 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.70,000/- is granted under the head of non-pecuniary damages in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,20,000 x 14 + 70,000 = Rs. 17,50,000/-. 11. As far as rate of interest is concerned, a Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another), decided on 21.3.2017, have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decisions of this High Court. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified. 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. 13. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 14. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting this very old matter disposed off.