Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajit Singh, JJ.
Smt. Munni Devi And 5 Ors.- Appellant
Vs.
Heera Lal And 2 Ors.- Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2974 of 2017
Decided On : 23-2-2021
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, in M.A.C. awarding a sum of Rs.4,47,000/-with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation. – First Information Report came to be filed and in the said F.I.R. it is mentioned that when the deceased was going to his home from Sahason (name of place) and when he reached Balipur Service Road, a tractor registered which was being driven at an exorbitant speed, dashed with the motorcycle driven by deceased which came below the tyres of the said tractor and the deceased died on the spot. – The claimants filed the claim petition contending that the deceased was doing carpentry work and was earning Rs.22,000/-per month. – The parents of the deceased were aged 39 and 38 years respectively. – The deceased was looking after his minor brothers and sisters who were in the age group of 5 to 14 years. – Claimants had claimed sum of Rs.91,50,000/-. – On service of notice, the owner and driver of the vehicle filed their replies and the owner accepted that he was the owner of the vehicle but denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. – The documents were produced and were proved. – Tribunal framed about five issues and held all of them in favour of the claimants holding that there was no breach of policy conditions. – The license was valid license and in issue No.5, the Tribunal has granted compensation. It is this compensation which has aggrieved the appellants.
Finding of the court: Court is hasten to hold that multiplier of 18 would be just multiplier. – As a general rule as held by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, if deceased was a bachelor, the deduction would be 1/2. However, in Pranay Sethi (Supra) it has been held that the Tribunals and the Appellate Court can take different view if there are more persons depending on the deceased. – Deceased had two minor sisters and two minor brothers. – According to the evidences led and the depositions of P.W.1 and 2, after the father of the deceased who was earning Rs.4,000/-per month as an attendant, the young boy had to undertake carpentry work so that he could meet with the family needs. – Hence, court deduct 1/3rd towards his personal expenses as he would be giving more to the family instead of being extravagant of expending 1/2 on him. – Court have deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/2 as the deceased was the only major son. – The father, no doubt, was having his own income but younger brothers and sisters were also being fed by him which has come in evidence. – Court have placed reliance on the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 66336 – As far as addition of future prospects is concerned, it would be 40% in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) as the deceased was below 40 years of age and was engaged in carpentry work. – No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.
Result: Appeal Partly Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker Ajit Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 23.5.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Allahabad now Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.356 of 2016 awarding a sum of Rs.4,47,000/-with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.
3. Facts, in nutshell, as culled out from the record, are that a First Information Report came to be filed being No.046 of 2016 and in the said F.I.R. it is mentioned that on 14.3.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. when the deceased was going to his home from Sahason (name of place) and when he reached Balipur Service Road, a tractor registered as UP 70 DE 8939 which was being driven at an exorbitant speed, dashed with the motorcycle bearing No.UP 70 BZ 5893 driven by deceased which came below the tyres of the said tractor and the deceased died on the spot. The claimants filed the claim petition contending that the deceased was doing carpentry work and was earning Rs.22,000/-per month. The parents of the deceased were aged 39 and 38 years respectively. The deceased was looking after his minor brothers and sisters who were in the age group of 5 to 14 years.
4. The claimants had claimed sum of Rs.91,50,000/-. On service of notice, the owner and driver of the vehicle filed their replies and the owner accepted that he was the owner of the vehicle but denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. The documents were produced and were proved. The Tribunal framed about five issues and held all of them in favour of the claimants holding that there was no breach of policy conditions. The license was valid license and in issue No.5, the Tribunal has granted compensation. It is this compensation which has aggrieved the appellants.
5. The owner and the Insurance Company have accepted the findings as far as their liability is concerned. The Tribunal even held that strict trappings of criminal and civil proceedings could not be made applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relied on the decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. U.C. Thakur and others, 2006 ACJ 2759 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahfuja Begum and others, 2002 ACJ 214. There is no dispute as far as the said issue is concerned.
6. The appellants examined witnesses. We do not delve into the same on all other aspects except the aspect of compensation. The deceased was considered to be 19 years of age. Kamal Singh, father of the deceased, has testified that the deceased was a student of B.Sc. Ist year and was also carrying on the business of carpentry. The testimony of P.W.3, Radhey Shyam, revealed that he knew the deceased and the deceased had prepared certain items of furniture for him and the deceased was being paid Rs.600/-as daily labour charges. Unfortunately, no documentary evidence was produced to prove the same. The learned Tribunal has returned the finding of negligence of the driver of the tractor and has also returned the finding that the deceased had proper driving license. The Tribunal, as far as policy is concerned, returned the finding in favour of the claimants and the owner. All those findings have attained finality. The Insurance Company has neither led any evidence nor orally submitted that there was breach of policy condition.
7. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.91,50,000/- contending that the deceased was earning Rs.22,000/-per month and have claimed 18% rate of interest. Kamal Singh, P.W.2, has accepted the fact that he does not have any proof about the income of the deceased. He has accepted that the deceased was student but was also doing work during his free time. The learned Tribunal has therefore not accepted the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.22,0
Point of law: Motor Vehicles –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 th....
The assessment of compensation must ensure fairness and reasonableness while considering income, future prospects, and applying the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
