Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2343 (ALL)

Smt. Omvati v. Viresh Kumar

2023-10-11

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT Saral Srivastava, J. Delay Condonation Application No.156512 of 2007:-. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 147 days. 3. The appellants have filed the delay condonation application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. The appellants have explained the delay in filing the appeal in paragraphs No.3 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. 5. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. No counter affidavit has been filed to the delay condonation application. 6. The appellants have properly explained the delay in filing the appeal and delay in filing the appeal is bona fide. 7. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. 8. The delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Appeal:- 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 18.10.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah in M.A.C.P. No.229/2003. 11. In the instant case, the claimant claimed for enhancement of award for the death of a child Bhupendra Kumar alias Upendra Kumar aged about 6 years. 12. The tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- lump sum along with 7% interest. 13. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shaym Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317 , the Apex Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- in case of a minor child. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra), therefore, the same amount of compensation shall be awarded to the claimant/appellants. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the deceased was only 6 years of age and, therefore, no loss of income was suffered by the claimant/appellants and the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,60,000/- lump sum as compensation to the claimant/appellants. 15. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the deceased was only 6 years of age and, therefore, no loss of income was suffered by the claimant/appellants and the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,60,000/- lump sum as compensation to the claimant/appellants. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra) has awarded in case of a minor Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation and considering the fact that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra), this Court also enhances the compensation from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. 16. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the amount is paid. The respondent no.2-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimant/appellant within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified to the extent indicated above.