Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Smt. Suman and Others – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Anisa Begum and Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order Nos. 126, 127, 128, 212 of 2010
Decided On : 22-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Balendu Shekhar.
For the Respondents: Harpal Singh Chadha, Inder Preet Singh Chadha.
Point of law: When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.”
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act – Motor Accident Claims – Enhancement of Compensation – Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Facts of the case:
Claimants/appellants in all four appeals are aggrieved against the award and they have assailed the award seeking enhancement on the ground that the tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the amount so awarded on the ground that the owner and driver of the other vehicle involved in accident was not impleaded whereas it was clearly a case of composite negligence and as such the claimants were required and entitled to receive the compensation from either of the joint tort feasors i.e. the respondents and thus the tribunal has erred in deducting the amount from the compensation so granted. –
Finding of the court:
It is absolutely clear and no more res integra that the tribunal has erred in making the deduction as it was a clear case of composite negligence and the claimants were entitled to sue any one of the joint tortfeasors. – Thus, this Court holds that the tribunal has erred in making the deduction from the amount so granted in all the four claim petitions and consequently the claimants in the award in all the four appeals shall be entitled to the full sum as awarded by the tribunal and subject to the enhancement made in these appeals, recoverable from the respondents and it shall be open for the respondents to recover the share from the other joint tort-feasors i.e. owner/insurer of the Matador in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei –
Result: First Appeals Partly Allowed
ORDER :
1. These bunch of four first appeals from order arise out of a single accident, in terms whereof four persons travelling in a matador, expired and their legal heirs have filed the respective claim petitions. All four claim petitions were allowed by the claims tribunal by means of the award dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Special Additional District Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow, acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. The claimants/appellants in all four appeals are aggrieved against the award and they have assailed the award seeking enhancement on the ground that the tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the amount so awarded on the ground that the owner and driver of the other vehicle involved in accident was not impleaded whereas it was clearly a case of composite negligence and as such the claimants were required and entitled to receive the compensation from either of the joint tort feasors i.e. the respondents and thus the tribunal has erred in deducting the amount from the compensation so granted.
3. The other ground raised is that the multiplier in certain cases have been incorrectly applied and the deduction for personal expenses have been incorrectly made and in all the cases the future prospects have not been considered and the consortium is highly inadequate thus it is prayed that in all four appeals enhancement be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the accident in question related to the year 2007 and considering the law prevailing at the relevant time, the tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation and has made the award. It was also urged that it was actually a case of contributory negligence and therefore the tribunal was justified in deducting the amount from the award so granted on the aforesaid count. Accordingly it was urged that the award did not require any interference from the Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Since the aforesaid four first appeals from order are for enhancement, accordingly the facts given rise to the award are being noticed briefly.
6. On 26.02.2007, a Matador bearing number U.P. 32T-3920 was carrying four persons. The aforesaid Matador was being driven with due caution and care. However, at round 4.45 P.M. when the aforesaid Matador reached Gram Mastipur on Lucknow Raebareli Highway near Police Station Nigonha, at the relevant time a Mini Truck bearing number U.P. 33A-8940 which was being driven extremely negligently coming from the opposite and wrong direction, hit the Matador as a result of the aforesaid accident, four persons in the aforesaid Matador received grievous injuries and ultimately all four of them died. The persons who died in the accident, namely, Sunny son of Anant Ram, aged about 20 years, who was engaged in the business of catering with M/s. Amit Caterer and was earning around Rs. 4500 per month. His mother and father Suman and Anant Ram instituted Claim Petition No. 236 of 2007 which has given rise to FAFO No. 126 of 2010.
7. Similarly the other person who expired was Rajesh Kumar, son of Chhedu Lal who was aged about 25 years also engaged in the catering business with M/s Amit Caterer earning around Rs. 6000/- per month. His wife, father and two minor children preferred Claim Petition No. 235 of 2007 which has given rise to First Appeal From Order No. 127 of 2010.
8. Surendra Kumar, son of Ram Lautan, aged about 26 years also engaged in catering works with M/s. Amit Caterer earning Rs. 6000/- per month. His wife, mother, father and four minor children preferred claim petition which was registered as Claim Petition No. 244 of 2007 which has given rise to First Appeal From Order No. 128 of 2010.
9. Another person namely Anil Kumar who also expired in the said accident, his wife, mother and minor daughter preferred Claim Petition No. 237 of 2007 which has g
