Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 578 (ALL)

Dinesh Kumar v. Prem Singh

2022-04-19

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the judgment and order impugned. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by appellants being aggrieved by order dated 25.5.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Fatehpur in M.A.C.P. No.173 of 1997 awarding sum of Rs.71,000/-with interest at the rate of 9%. 3. This is a claimants' appeal claiming enhancement for the death of child who was eight years of age at the time of death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the year 1997, normally the amount awardable to the child would be at least Rs.1,56,000/-and has relied on the decisions of this Court and Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this Court in its recent decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows: "6. Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is also partly allowed." 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the amount awarded is just and proper as the accident is of the year 1997. 5. The recent judgment of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67995 will also have to be looked into. The concept of just compensation has been lost site of by the Tribunal. 5. The recent judgment of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67995 will also have to be looked into. The concept of just compensation has been lost site of by the Tribunal. The decision which would hold the feel would not be the judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) and Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali but would be the judgment of Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) which has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Triloki Chand, 1996 ACJ Page 31. The recent decision in Manju Devi (Supra) will enure for the benefit of the appellant. The appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,56,000/-. 6. Interest granted by the Tribunal is modified. This appeal remain has defective appeal since 2004 and delay was condoned in the year 2022 and the matter is taken up for final disposal, Hence, insurance company would be liable to pay interest on the additional amount at 6% from the date of filing of the appeal till the delay is condoned and 3% thereafter. The amount already deposited, be deducted. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The additional amount be recalculated with interest as directed above and deposited within 8 weeks from today. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 8. This Court is thankful to both the counsels for ably assisting this Court in getting this appeal disposed off.