Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1360 (ALL)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Urmila Devi

2020-11-24

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2020
JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri. Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal is that on 9.4.2016 Basant Kumar Dixit riding on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-78/DD/5182 was going to Kanpur from M/s Jai Ambe Brick Field, Sarlekhpur, Ghatampur for realisation of the amount and as soon as he reached near closed shop before Raipur bridge, the driver of Truck No. UP-22/T/5888 came rashly and negligently without blowing horn and dashed the motorcycle badly on account of which he fell down on the road and driver of the truck proceeded ahead crushing him as consequence of which the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. 3. The claimants approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ by way of filing M.A.C.P. No. 410 of 2016 claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with 12% annual interest. 4. The Tribunal by way of impugned judgment and award dated 3.11.2017 awarded a sum of Rs. 7,24,496/- as compensation with annual interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing claim petition till date of payment. Being dissatisfied, the appellant-Insurance Company filed present appeal challenging the said award. 5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 6. I have perused the Judgment and award impugned herein. 7. This appeal requires to be allowed as learned counsel Sri. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the claimants could not dispute the fact that the addition for future prospects should not be 20% but it should be 10% as submitted by counsel for the Insurance Company. The age of the deceased was 59 years is admitted position of fact. Income of the deceased has been considered to be Rs. 8,000/- to which 1/3rd has to be deducted for personal expenses which would be Rs. 2,666/- (rounded figure) to which addition of 10% would be required instead of 20% as per the Judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050. Income of the deceased has been considered to be Rs. 8,000/- to which 1/3rd has to be deducted for personal expenses which would be Rs. 2,666/- (rounded figure) to which addition of 10% would be required instead of 20% as per the Judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050. The rest of the award shall remain undisturbed as I am unable to accept the submission of Sri. Gour that as far as Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of love and affection would have been Rs. 70,000/-. The Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered future addition at 10% per year. The accident occurred in the year 2016, hence, the amount is not disturbed. 8. The interest at the rate of 7% is modified to 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mannat Johat and Others, 2019 (2) TAC 705 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court.” 9. The appeal is partly allowed. Amount has to be recalculated. Refund of excess amount has to be made to the Insurance company by account payee cheque, however, the amount at the rate of interest is more, the Insurance Company shall deposit the same. 10. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal is partly allowed. 11. Record and proceedings be sent to the Tribunal.