Back
2022 Supreme(All) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
Rajesh Devi and Another – Appellants
Versus
Nathnati Saha and Others – Respondents
First Appeal from Order No. 1822 of 2021
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kamini Pandey (Dubey), Anand Kumar Pandey
Point of Law : Accident claim – claimants were entitled to compensation for both ‘loss of consortium’ and for ‘loss of love and affection.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Enhancement of compensation - Deceased was a skilled carpenter earning Rs.15000/- per month - Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Issue no.2 was as to whether at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence - Issue No.3 was as to whether at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with opposite party no.3 and Issue no.4 was regarding compensation payable to the claimants and the defendant liable to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court :
Balance amount / excess amount as awarded in the present appeal shall be deposited by the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 in the Tribunal within three months from today. The amount so deposited by the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 under the present order of this Court shall be deposited by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad in the highest interest bearing fixed deposit schemes, either of the post office or of any nationalized bank. The receipts of the fixed deposit shall be handed over to the appellants who shall be entitled to withdraw the maturity amount when the fixed deposits mature. The maturity amount shall be credited by the bank/post office in any savings account of the appellants. The concerned bank or post office shall not permit any loan or advance against the fixed deposits made in favour of the appellants. The Tribunal, while depositing the amount in any fixed deposit scheme, shall communicate the directions issued by this Court to the concerned bank/post office.
Result : Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a claimants' appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 16.8.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.123 of 2020 (Rajesh Devi and others versus Nathnati Saha and others).
2. By order dated 22.2.2022, service of notice of the appeal was declared to be sufficient on the opposite parties and as no one had appeared on their behalf therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte against the opposite parties.
3. The claimants/appellants instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No.123 of 2020 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1988) claiming compensation of Rs.21,40,950/- for the death of their son Pappu due to injuries caused in an accident that took place on 4.3.2020 allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. DL 14 SH8693 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’). It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was a skilled carpenter earning Rs.15000/-per month.
4. Despite notices having been served on them the defendants/opposite parties did not contest the claim petition and did not file their written statement, therefore proceedings before the Tribunal were held ex parte against the defendants/opposite parties.
5. The claimant appellant no.1 is the mother of the deceased and the claimant appellant no. 2 is the father of the deceased. The defendant-opposite party no.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, the defendant opposite party no. 2 is the driver of the offending vehicle and the defendant opposite party no.3 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was allegedly insured.
6. The Tribunal framed four issues. Issue no.1 was as to whether Pappu died in the accident that took place on 4.3.2020 and whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Issue no.2 was as to whether at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence. Issue No.3 was as to whether at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with opposite party no.3 and Issue no.4 was regarding compensation payable to the claimants and the defendant liable to pay compensation.
7. The Tribunal decided Issue no.1 in favour of the claimants and held that Pappu died due to injuries caused in the accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Issue nos. 2 & 3 were decided against the owner of the vehicle. On Issue no.4, which related to compensation payable to the claimants, the Tribunal computed the pecuniary damages payable to the claimants taking the age of the deceased as 23 years and assuming the income of the deceased to be Rs.5000/-per month. The Tribunal added 40% future prospects in the income of the deceased on the ground that the deceased had no fixed salary. The Tribunal deducted 50% from the income of the deceased and after applying a multiplier of 18 held the pecuniary loss to the claimants to be Rs.7,56,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-for loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses in accordance with Rule 220-A(2) of the U.P Motor Vehicles Rules 1998 (hereinafterreferredtoasRules,1998)and 7% simple interest per annum on the awarded amount. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
8. It was argued by the counsel for the claimants-appellants that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation treating the income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- per month even though the claimant no. 2 in his testimony as P.W-1 had proved that the deceased was a skilled carpenter and earned Rs.15,000/-per month. It was further argued that in accordance with Rule 220-A of the Rules 1998, 50% as future prospe
