Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2736 (ALL)

Abida Khatoon v. Mahesh Chandra

2019-12-09

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal vide its award dated 13.08.2004 in M.A.C.P. No.181 of 2001, Smt. Abida Khantoon vs. Mahesh Chandra and others, whereby overall compensation amount Rs.52,000/- under various heads along with 6% interest was required to be realized from the opposite party no.2- United Insurance Company Ltd. 3. Brief and relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the concerned accident took place on 7.6.1995 by rash and negligent driving of Truck No.DIG 2088 by its driver by colliding the truck from behind with the trolley in question (Tractor No. UGN- 3046), due to which, the father of the appellant- Inamul Huq- sustained injuries and died. The accident took place around 3.30 P.M. in front of village- Piprakala, Police Station- Munderwa, district Basti, where report was lodged at case crime no.108 of 1995 and charge- sheet no.59 of 1995 was filed against the offending truck driver, who made his escape good after causing the accident. 4. Later on, claim petition (181/2001) was moved before the aforesaid tribunal, whereby, several claims were raised and overall compensation Rs.2,30,000/- was sought to be realized from the opposite party- Insurance company. The case was contested by the opposite parties and written statement filed. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal concerned made several issues for adjudication of the claim petition, whereby relevant issues relating to the factum of accident as to whether the accident in question was caused on 7.6.1995 at 3.30 P.M. within the vicinity of village- Piprakala, Police Station- Munderwa, District- Basti by rash and negligent driving of Truck No.DIG 2088 by its driver due to which deceased- Inamul Huq sustained injuries and died, if yes, its effect?- was framed. 5. Issue no.2 related to the fact whether the driver of the aforesaid offending truck was holding and possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? 6. Issue no.3 related to the factum of insurance of the offending truck with the respondent insurance company. 7. Issue no.4 related to the fact whether the driver of Tractor No. UGN 3040- deceased Inamul Huq himself contributed to the accident, if yes, its effect? 8. 6. Issue no.3 related to the factum of insurance of the offending truck with the respondent insurance company. 7. Issue no.4 related to the fact whether the driver of Tractor No. UGN 3040- deceased Inamul Huq himself contributed to the accident, if yes, its effect? 8. Issue no.5 related to the fact of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-appellant? 9. The appellant led oral testimony of two witnesses- Bashir Ahamad as P.W.2 and the appellant herself Smt. Abida Khatoon as P.W.1. Relevant papers were also brought on record. The opposite parties and particularly the insurance company did not lead any evidence whatsoever, oral or documentary. 10. The Tribunal concerned after considering the entirety of the case recorded specific finding on each of the aforesaid issues and found the case fit for awarding compensation. While calculating compensation the tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased to Rs.15,000/- per annum and after slicing off 1/3 out of the same it pegged the annual income to Rs.10,000/-. Oral and documentary proof vindicated claim that the age of the deceased was 60 years, therefore, the annual dependency to the extent of Rs.10,000/- was multiplied by multiplicand 5, thus, aggregating to Rs.15,000/-. Apart from above, Rs.2000/- was further awarded under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, the overall compensation Rs.52,000/- was awarded along with interest 6% per annum. 11. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is confined to the ambit that the appellant was dependent on the deceased- her father for her livelihood and day to day life. Specific claim is that there is no other claimant except the appellant- daughter of the deceased and she alone has the right to seek compensation. She being dependent on her deceased father Inamul Huq. 12. Specific claim is that there is no other claimant except the appellant- daughter of the deceased and she alone has the right to seek compensation. She being dependent on her deceased father Inamul Huq. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant erred in law and failed to apply the correct multiplier applicable in the annual dependency amount of the deceased and it wrongly calculated that multiplier of 5 would be applicant to the annual dependency, whereas, in a catena of cases and particularly in the case of Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported 2009 Lawsuit (SC) 613, Hon'ble Apex Court analysed the entire multiplier system and has arrived at conclusion that in such cases, normally multiplier of 7 should have been applied by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has also engaged attention of this Court to paragraphs 19 and 21 of the Judgment and claimed that the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others (Supra) would prevail but the Tribunal ignored it for no worthy reason. Admittedly, the deceased was 60 years and while calculating from that point, proper multiplier will be 7 instead of 5. 14. The insurance company has claimed that in this case a married woman cannot be treated to be the dependent of her father, if her husband is living, merely on the ground that the daughter is the sole successor of the entire property of the father. But this claim of the petitioner will boomerang in the shape that the property left by the father is to be inherited by the daughter that itself would be sufficient means for her maintenance during life and she cannot be treated to be dependant of her father to that extent. 15. I have considered the rival submissions. 16. The moot point before this Court is whether the compensation amount awarded to the claimant appellant is meagre, lesser and proper approach was not adopted by the Tribunal concerned? 17. 15. I have considered the rival submissions. 16. The moot point before this Court is whether the compensation amount awarded to the claimant appellant is meagre, lesser and proper approach was not adopted by the Tribunal concerned? 17. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and particularly the impugned award dated 13.8.2004, wherein while deciding the point of compensation, specific finding has been recorded on issue no.5, whereby in the absence of cogent proof of monthly income, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the annual income, as per the second schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988 to Rs.15,000/- and the same fixation cannot be faulted with at this juncture by this Court, however, in so far as the applicability of the proper multiplier in the annual dependency is concerned, then obviously the principle and the mandate as contained in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is concerned, the same is very much applicable, the multiplier applicable in this case would be 7' instead of 5', therefore, the annual income which was fixed to the tune of Rs.10,000/- is to be multiplied by 7' then it will aggregate to Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the amount of compensation should swell to Rs.72,000/- instead of Rs.52,000/- as decided by the Tribunal. 18. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the adjudication of issue no.5 is concerned, the same is hereby modified to the extent that the proper compensation amount to be given to the appellant would be Rs.72,000/- and this will carry interest at the rate of 6% as was awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the operative portion of the award dated 13.8.2004 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 19. In view of above analysis, the instant appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. 20. The aforesaid entire amount is to be realized from the insurance company and deposited with the Tribunal within 30 days from today. 21. Costs easy.