Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 671 (ALL)

Belji v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2020-03-03

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2020
JUDGMENT : Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the owner. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been preferred against the Judgment dated 12.10.2006 and decree dated 1.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, District Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 683 of 2001, Belji (Gujrati) and others v. Sunil Kumar and others whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,51,800/- as compensation. 3. As per claim petition, accident took place on 19.8.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. in front of Mustafa Complex situated at Noorullah Road, P.S. Kareli, District Allahabad. On the day of accident, deceased had gone out of home at about 7.30 a.m. to sell dry fruits when a Vikram Tempo having Registration No. U.P. 70 E 9885 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed him. He was rushed to Swarup Rani Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. 4. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased was 25 years of age ate the time of accident. He was vendor of cloths and dry fruits but Tribunal has considered his income only Rs. 18,00/- per mensem which is on lower side and the same should have been at least Rs. 3,000/-. 40% of the income should be added as future loss of income of the deceased in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, that as the deceased had five persons to feed, the deduction should be 1/4th and that under non-pecuniary heads, the claimants are entitled to at least Rs. 70,000/- alongwith 18% rate of interest. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as owner vehemently contended that income of the deceased was not proved and therefore, the income of Rs. 1800/- per mensem is not required to be disturbed. 70,000/- alongwith 18% rate of interest. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as owner vehemently contended that income of the deceased was not proved and therefore, the income of Rs. 1800/- per mensem is not required to be disturbed. He has further contended that sisters were not dependant and father cannot be said to have been dependent on him, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd is just and proper. So far as multiplier is concerned, it may be considered as per Judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). It is further contended that Insurance Company has been saddled with liability coextensively. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the judgment and order impugned, the income of the deceased in the year 2000 can be considered to be Rs. 3,000/-, to which as the deceased was below 40 years, 40% will have to be added. Further, looking to the dependents of the deceased, I am in agreement with Sri Vipul Kumar that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is considered to be 1/3rd and not 1/4th as has been done by the Tribunal. As deceased was in the age bracket of 21-25, multiplier of 18 would be applicable. Hence, the compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision' of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed herein below: i. Income Rs. 3,000/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs. 1,200/- iii. Total income : Rs. 3,000 + 1200 = Rs. 4,200/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs. 2,800/- v. Annual income: Rs. 2,800 x 12 = Rs. 33,600/- vi. Multiplier applicable: 18 vii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 33,600 x 18= Rs. 6,04,800/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads : Rs. 70,000/- ix. Total compensation : 6,74,800/-. 8. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the judgment of the Tribunal and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.