Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2260 (ALL)

Arjun Singh v. Siyaram

2023-10-04

JASPREET SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 06.01.2012 whereby in C.P. No.162 of 2010, in a death case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 2,62,000/- alongwith 6% interest per annum which was payable by the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has primarily submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier on the basis of the age of the father of the deceased rather the multiplier should have been on the age of the deceased. It is further urged that neither any amount has been awarded towards future prospects nor the appropriate amount has been granted under the conventional heads. 3. It is further submitted that it was stated that the deceased was engaged in the business of selling milk and was able to earn 6000/- per month but the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as 2500/- which was completely incorrect. It is thus urged that for the aforesaid reason, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced sum as to be determined by this Court. 4. Shri. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances has appropriately calculated the awarded sum and as such considering the facts and circumstances the award does not require any interference especially when substantial justice have been done. 5. The Court has heard Shri. Faisal Ansari, holding brief of Shri. Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and also perused the material on record.. 6. The record indicates that the appellants had filed a claim petition bearing No.162 of 2010 stating that on 28.05.2010 at 8.00 A.M. Dharmendra Singh (the deceased) was travelling to go to Faizabad and was sitting on the front seat of Jeep Mahindra Max Number UP 42-T-1019. As the said Jeep had reached Shankargarh Bazar, situate on Faizabad-Ambedkar Nagar Road, the Jeep driver collided with a DCM Truck bearing Number UP 43-T-0938. In the said accident Dharmendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and though he was taken to the district hospital, Faizabad, but he succumbed to his injuries. 7. As the said Jeep had reached Shankargarh Bazar, situate on Faizabad-Ambedkar Nagar Road, the Jeep driver collided with a DCM Truck bearing Number UP 43-T-0938. In the said accident Dharmendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and though he was taken to the district hospital, Faizabad, but he succumbed to his injuries. 7. In the claim petition which was contested, the Tribunal framed four issues and it returned a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Max Jeep UP-42-T-1019. It also found that the vehicle was duly insured and thereafter the Tribunal went on to notice that the age of the deceased was 27 years and since he was engaged in the business of selling milk but the same could not be adequately proved, hence it took a sum of 2500/- as monthly income and thereafter deducting 1/3 towards the expenses, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and thereafter added a sum of 2000/- as funeral expenses and a total sum of 2,62,000/- alongwith 6% interest per annum was awarded. 8. Considering the submissions of the respective parties and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 13 considering the age of the claimant's father. It is now well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the multiplier is to be adopted on the age of the deceased and not his parents (see Sunita Tokas and another v. New India Insurance Company (2019) 20 SCC 688 and (2020) 12 SCC page 645, Kunjan Sadana and another v. Mahesh Kumar). Thus apparently, there is an error in the award while making the calculation. This Court further finds that the deceased was unmarried and he was survived by his parents, accordingly the deduction of 1/3rd made by the Tribunal is not correct rather 50% deduction should have been made. 9. Even otherwise noticing the age of the deceased as 27 years which was mentioned in the claim petition though in the post-mortem, it was noticed to be 25 years. However, in any case taking the multiplier of the age of 27, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 17. 9. Even otherwise noticing the age of the deceased as 27 years which was mentioned in the claim petition though in the post-mortem, it was noticed to be 25 years. However, in any case taking the multiplier of the age of 27, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 17. Since there was clear evidence to indicate that the deceased was earning by selling milk and even if at all, there was no formal proof of the same, but nevertheless the Tribunal was not justified in taking a notional income of 2500/- per month, rather the minimum that should have been taken was 3000/- per month. The Tribunal also ought to have granted appropriate amount towards the conventional heads and this Court finds that no amount has been paid towards filial consortium nor for loss of estate and even the funeral expenses have been inadequately awarded. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the amount granted by the Tribunal is on a lower side and looking at the date of accident, that the appeal was initially filed with a delay of about one year and even the issue for grant of consortium and future prospects have been developed during the arguments, hence the compensation is enhanced as per the calculation made by this Court:- Income = 3000/- per month Future Prospect @ 40% = 1200 per month Deduction towards personal expenses 50% = 2100 per month Age =27 Multiplier =17 Thus, compensation payable = 2100X12X17= 4,28,400/-[A] Filial consortium for appellant no.1 & 2 = 40000/- Loss of Estate = 10000/- Funeral expenses = 10000/- Total = 60,000/-[B] Thus, total compensation payable shall be [A] 4,28,400 + [B] 60,000 = 4,88,400/- 10. Considering the all facts and circumstances, the claimants-appellants shall be entitled to a total sum of 4,88,400/- as determined by this Court alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of its actual payment. Any amount paid to the appellants already by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the amount so determined by this Court and the remaining shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants within 60 days from the date, a copy of this judgment is placed before the Insurance Company. 11. Any amount paid to the appellants already by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the amount so determined by this Court and the remaining shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellants within 60 days from the date, a copy of this judgment is placed before the Insurance Company. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands partly allowed and the award dated 06.01.2012 passed in Claim Petition No.162 of 2010 shall stand modified to the extend as provided in this judgment. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith.