Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Smt. Shanti And 4 Others - Appellant
Versus
Anil Awasthi @ Anil Kumar Awasthi and Another – Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 866 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 867 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 868 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 869 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 870 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 871 of 2011
Decided On : 30-05-2022
The judgment deals with the issue of quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in a motor accident claim petition. The claimants were the dependents of the deceased who died in a motor accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the claimants, but they were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and filed appeals. The court held that the Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, and not awarding compensation under the conventional heads in accordance with the law. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 18, as per the decision in Sarla Verma. The court modified the impugned awards and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Keshan (Krishna), was standing near a parked tractor trolley when a DCM truck driven rashly and negligently hit the trolley, leading to the deceased's death. The claimants, the dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the loss suffered by them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, and not awarding compensation under the conventional heads in accordance with the law. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 18, as per the decision in Sarla Verma.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects to the deceased? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the conventional heads in accordance with the law? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 18?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects to the deceased, as it is a well-established principle that future prospects are to be awarded in motor accident claim petitions. The court relied on the decision in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, where the Supreme Court held that future prospects are to be determined by adding a certain percentage to the income of the deceased, depending on their age. 2. The court held that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, as the correct deduction is 1/4th, as per the decision in Sarla Verma. The court held that the Tribunal should have considered the number of dependents of the deceased and deducted accordingly. 3. The court held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the conventional heads in accordance with the law. The court held that the claimants were entitled to compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, as per the decision in Pranay Sethi. 4. The court held that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 18, as per the decision in Sarla Verma. The court held that the multiplier to be applied depends on the age of the deceased, and in this case, the deceased was below 40 years of age, so the multiplier of 18 should have been applied.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned awards and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. The claimants were also entitled to their costs in the respective appeals.
JUDGMENT :
1. This judgment will dispose of the present appeal and connected Appeal Nos. 867 of 2011, 868 of 2011, 869 of 2011, 870 of 2011 and 871 of 2011.
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and award of Mr. Balendu Singh, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow dated 26.10.2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 141 of 2005.
3. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants, who seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are the dependents of one Keshan (Krishna), who died in a motor accident on March the 8th, 2005 at about 5 O’ Clock in the morning at a place beyond Bhitariya near Badaila-Narayanpur Chauraha, falling within the local limits of P.S. Ramsanehi Ghat in the District of Barabanki. According to the claimants, the deceased had boarded a tractor trolley, bearing Registration No. U.P. 78 A-9585, along with other natives of the village to do darshan of Mahadeva at Barabanki. On way to destination on the date, time and place indicated, the passengers on board the tractor trolley got down to answer the nature’s call, the tractor trolley being parked on the left hand side of the road. Some passengers proceeded to the nearby fields and some stayed on board. There were still others, who de-boarded, but stood about the parked vehicle. At that time, a DCM truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 78 AN 4185, proceeding from the opposite direction, driven rashly and negligently, hit the stationary tractor trolley. The right side of the tractor trolley was damaged. In consequence of the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries, of which he died.
4. A first information report of the accident was lodged with the Police by one Krishna Pal Singh, a passenger on board the ill-fated tractor trolley, on 8th March, 2005 at about 05:45 a.m. The information was registered as Case Crime No. 106 of 2005, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, P.S. Ramsanehi Ghat, District Barabanki against the unknown driver of the DCM truck. This was so because after the accident, the offending truck was apprehended but the driver made good his escape. The inquest and autopsy of the dead body was done in accordance with law and the Police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, Suresh Kumar Mishra. The Police, as part of the case diary, also drew up a site plan of the accident.
5. Besides MACP No. 141 of 2005 giving rise to the present appeal, MACP Nos. 142 of 2005 to 146 of 2005 were filed by the dependents of the other deceased-victims of the aforesaid accident. All the claim petitions were tried together and decided by separate judgments and awards, all dated 26.10.2010 passed by the same Tribunal. The connected Appeal Nos. 867 of 2011 to 871 of 2011 arise out of the judgments and awards passed in the claim petitions instituted by the dependents of the other victims of the accident. Since common questions of fact and law arise in all the appeals, these were connected, heard together and are being decided by a common judgment, as already said. FAFO No. 866 of 2011 shall be treated as the leading case. However, the distinguishing features of each case in the matter of determining the compensation shall be indicated during the course of this judgment.
6. Heard Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, United India Insurance Company Ltd. in the leading case and in all connected appeals, where parties are identically arrayed. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘claimants’, whereas the United India Insurance Company-respondent no. 2 shall be called the ‘Insurance Company’. In the claim petition giving rise to the leading appeal, the owner of the offending truck, Anil Awasthi was arrayed as opposite party no. 1. Anil Awasthi, the owne
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
