Back
2023 Supreme(All) 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
Smt. Malti Devi And Another – Appellant
Versus
Virendra Kumar And Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No.560 of 1997
Decided on : 14-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Madhav Jain
For the Respondent: Amaresh Sinha, Amresh Singh
Point of Law : As the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants - As long period has elapsed, amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 43 - Rule 1 - Accident - Death – Compensation - Deceased was travelling in a bus bearing registration no. U.P.- which due to rash and negligent driving met with an accident as a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries was admitted to S.N. Hospital, where he succumb to his injuries - Tribunal comes to conclusion that deceased was 14 years of age and was not contributing to income of claimants and considered notional income to be Rs. 600/-p.m but thereafter held that his income would be namely granted multiplier of 15 which would and granted what is known as amount under no fault liability for funeral and ultimately assessed total compensation - Whether vehicle was insured and there was any breach of policy was also answered in favour of appellant - Oral objection raised under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C, the learned counsel for respondent objected that the 12% rate of interest is too high, rate of interest in the year 1997 also requires reconsideration. [Para 8]
Finding of Court : As against this, learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that accident occurred in year - He has further relied on judgment of undersigned and has contended that in year of accident amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- would be just and proper - Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in above petition by tribunal as per the modification made herein - Tribunals in State shall follow direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into condition of litigant and the pendency of matter and judgment of A.V. Padma (supra) - Same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.
Result : Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants who are the parents of the minor child who succumb to death at the age of 14 of years and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Amaresh Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 18.03.1997 passed by M.A.C.T/Xth-Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 81 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs. 52,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.
3. Five issues are granted in favour of the claimants. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute and was decided against the respondents. The issue whether the vehicle was insured and there was any breach of policy was also answered in favour of the appellant. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 27.01.1994, deceased Rakesh Kumar was travelling in a bus bearing registration no. U.P.-80E-9416 which due to rash and negligent driving met with an accident as a result of which deceased Rakesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. Rakesh Kumar was admitted to S.N. Hospital, Agra where he succumb to his injuries on 29.01.1994.
5. The tribunal comes to the conclusion that the deceased was 14 years of age and therefore was not contributing to the income of the claimants and therefore considered notional income to be Rs. 600/-p.m but thereafter held that his income would be Rs. 300/-p.m namely Rs. 36,00/-p.a., granted multiplier of 15 which would be Rs. 36,000/-and granted what is known as amount under no fault liability to be Rs. 50,000/-, granted Rs. 2000/- for funeral and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 52,000/-with 12% interest.
6. The accident occurred on 27.01.1994. It is contended by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant that even in the year of accident i.e in 1994, the law was that a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-was admissible. It is further submitted that recently the Apex Court discussing all the judgments as in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 0 (SC) 687 has held that for a child of 7 years also the Court has granted a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/-. After discussing all the judgments on the question of grant of compensation for the death of a minor children he has heavily relied upon the judgment of R.K. Malik & Another Vs. Kiran Pal & Others, 2009 0 SC 1113.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred in the year 1994. The judgment of the Apex Court in what is known as Upahar tragedy be considered. The judgment of Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and that of Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 be considered. He has further relied on the judgment of the undersigned and has contended that in the year of accident the amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- would be just and proper.
8. Having considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the oral objection raised under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C, the learned counsel for the respondent objected that the 12% rate of interest is too high, the rate of interest in the year 1997 also requires reconsideration. The amount would be for 14 year minor child in the year 1994 where the parents who are aged 45 and 47 years would be Rs. 1,56,000/-as held by Apex Court in catena of decisions. The decision of Apex Court in case of Kurvan Ansari (supra) and Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and others (2014) 1 SCC 244 deal with the accident post year 2000.
9. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it would be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Jo-hal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex
