Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Smt. Anita And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.Throu.Manager & Anr. - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 182 of 2019
Decided on : 13-12-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A - U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules 2011 - Accident– Death – Compensation Awarded – Seeking enhancement of amount of compensation - Motor Accident Claim Tribunal regarding age of deceased i.e. 23 years at time of accident, date of accident place of accident i.e. Village, date of death, negligence of driver of Motorcycle, validity of insurance policy and validity of driving licence, are not in dispute, meaning thereby that there is no dispute regarding findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issues - There is also no dispute on the issue of multiplier of 18, which was applied by Tribunal for computing compensation. As per pleadings on record, deceased- expired leaving behind his wife-Anita, son, daughter, mother, father and brother and after considering the number of dependants, Tribunal applied multiplicand of 1/4. This multiplicand is also not in dispute. However, while awarding the total amount of compensation, Tribunal rejected claim of brother, brother of deceased.
Finding of the court:
While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where deceased had a permanent job and was below age of 40 years, should be made. Addition should be 30%, if age of deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case deceased was between age of 50 to 60 years, addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax - Deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was below age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where deceased was between age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as necessary method of computation. The established income means income minus the tax component -The award of the Tribunal so far it relates to grant of compensation towards future prospects and under conventional heads, such as, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses etc., this Court holds that the claimants-appellants are entitled to compensation towards future prospects and enhancement under conventional heads, such as, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses etc - Court view that appellants are entitled to an amount to the tune of Rs. 16,10,800/-as detailed hereinunder, with interest @ 6%, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of claim petition till realization - Court has modified the judgment and award.
Result: Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Govind Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded/granted by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. First, District-Balrampur vide judgment and award dated 18.12.2018 passed in Claim Petition No. 6 of 2014 (Smt. Anita and others v. Mahendra and another).
3. The issues framed by the Tribunal for the purposes of adjudication of claim on reproduction reads as under:-
5- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr ;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k gsrq fnukad 07-05-2016 dks fuEufyf[kr vo/kk;Z fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s &
1- D;k fnukad 24-12-2012 dks le; djhc 04-20 cts 'kke jsgjk ckckxat jksM+ ij Hkqrgk rky ds ikl ogn xzke dsjkMhg Fkkuk{ks= jsgjk cktkj tuin cyjkeiqj es eksVjlkbfdy iath;u laŒ;wŒihŒ 43 ,uŒ 4694 dk pkyd okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh&iwoZd pykrs gq, vk;k vkSj ihNs ls vfuy dqekj dh eksVjlkbfdy iath;u la[;k ,eŒ,pŒ14 MhŒ,lŒ5308 es VDdj ekj nh] ftlls vfuy dqekj dks xEHkhj ,oa izk.k?kkrd pksVs vk;h rFkk nq?kZVuk es vk;h pksVks ds dkj.k nkSjku bykt fnukd 25-12-2012 dh esfMdy dkyst y[kuÅ es mldh e`R;q gks x;h\ ;fn gka rks izHkko
2- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVuk dkjd okgu eksVjlkbfdy iath;u laŒ ;wŒihŒ 43,uŒ 4694 foi{kh laŒ2 bQdks Vksfd;ks tujy ba';ksjsal daŒ fyŒ ds }kjk fof/kor chfer Fkh vkSj okgu dk ifjpkyu chek dh 'krksZ ds vuq:i fd;k tk jgk Fkk\ ;fn gka rks izHkko\
3- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVukdkjd okgu eksVjlkbfdy iath;u laŒ;wŒihŒ 43,uŒ4694 ds pkyd ds ikl okgu pykus dh oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh] ;fn gka rks izHkko\
4- D;k ;kphx.k fdlh izdkj dk izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka] rks fdruh /kujkf'k vkSj fdl foi{kh ls\^^
4. The findings of fact recorded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") regarding age of deceased i.e. 23 years at the time of accident, date of accident i.e. 24.12.2012, place of accident i.e. Village-Karodi, P.S.-Rehra Bazar, District-Balrampur, date of death i.e. 25.12.2012, negligence of driver of Motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P 43N9694, validity of insurance policy and validity of driving licence, are not in dispute, meaning thereby that there is no dispute regarding findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3. There is also no dispute on the issue of multiplier of 18, which was applied by the Tribunal for computing the compensation. As per the pleadings on record, the deceased-Anil Kumar expired leaving behind his wife-Anita, son-Harshverdhan, daughter-Km. Pratima, mother-Smt. Geeta Devi, father-Chandrika Prasad and brother-Mukesh Kumar and after considering the number of dependants, the Tribunal applied multiplicand of 1/4. This multiplicand is also not in dispute. However, while awarding the total amount of compensation, the Tribunal rejected the claim of Mukesh Kumar, brother of the deceased.
5. As the present appeal relates to enhancement of amount of compensation, the issue No. 4 is under consideration.
6. After recording the findings on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Tribunal awarded compensation vide judgment and award, under appeal, dated 18.12.2018. The relevant portion of the same on reproduction reads as under:-
4& D;k ;kphx.k fdlh izdkj dk izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka] rks fdruh /kujkf'k vkSj fdl foi{kh ls\
32- mijksDr leLr ifjppkZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g Li"V gks pqdk gS fd fnukad 24-12-2012 dks 'kke 04-20 ij jsgjk ckckxat jksM ij Hkqrgk rky ds ikl dsjkMhg xkao ds ikl eksVjlkbfdy iath;u laŒ;wŒihŒ43,uŒ 4694 pkyd okgu dks rhozxfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj vfuydqekj dh eksVjlkbfdy es VDdj ekj fn;k] ftlds vfuy dqekj dh e`R;q gks x;hA rnuqlkj ;kphx.k izfrdj ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA ;kphx.k ds i{k es fudys x;s fu"d"kZ ,oa miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;kphx.k izfrdj e; C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh
Point of law: Where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should consider the notional income of the deceased, future prospects, an....
Point of law: All the judgments apply retrospectively except otherwise provided. It is well established principle of law that the principle of prospective operation of over ruling of judgment, does n....
The quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in a motor accident claim petition is to be determined by considering various factors, including future prospects, personal expenses of the deceas....
Point of Law : No compensation can be awarded under head ‘loss of love and affection’.
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.
Point of Law : In death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads, viz – loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
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
