Kamlesh vs Rajendra Kumar - 2023 Supreme(All) 2350

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
Smt. Kamlesh - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar And Others - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 962 OF 1994.
Decided On : 07-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Y.S. Bohra.
For the Respondent: Arvind Kumar, Anubhav Sinha.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Compensation for death in a motor accident - The Tribunal awarded Rs.85,000/- as compensation, which was contested on the grounds of insufficient income assessment and the applicable multiplier. The court recalculated the income to Rs.900/- per month and determined a total compensation of Rs.2,71,360/-. The interest rate was modified to 7.5%. (Paras 3-8, 9)

(B) Appeal - The assessment of compensation is a factual determination within the discretion of the Tribunal, which should reflect just and reasonable compensation. (Paras 5, 10)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, an agriculturist aged 27, left behind a widow and three minor children. The Tribunal's initial compensation focus was on income estimation and multiplier application without considering future loss of income.

Findings of Court:
The total compensation payable was computed as Rs.2,71,360/- inclusive of loss of dependency and non-pecuniary damages.

Issues: The primary issues involved the assessment of the deceased's income and the appropriateness of the multipliers used for compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to justly compensate the family of the deceased based on factual income and multiplier guidelines set forth by superior courts.

Result: Appeal partly allowed, compensation modified.

Table of Content
1. background on accident and compensation amount. (Para 2 , 4)
2. arguments on income assessment and multiplier application. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's assessment on compensation and interest rate. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. conclusion on appeal and acknowledgement of counsel. (Para 10 , 15)
5. guidelines on interest deduction and investment orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for respondent - insurance company and perused the judgment and order impugned. None appears for owner.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and award dated 11.05.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.29 of 1984 awarding a sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The accident took place on 08.07.1984. The deceased was 27 years of age and was an agriculturist. Deceased-Nanak Chand who was 27 years of age left behind him, his widow and three minor children which fact is not in dispute. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.600/- per month, granted multiplier of 20 and that is how the Tribunal has calculated the total compensation to be Rs.85,000/-

5. Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income of the deceased should be considered to be at least Rs.1,500/- per month. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be granted in view of decision in of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20, which would be 17 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , 2009 LawSuit (SC) .

6. As against this, Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has contended that multiplier of 20 granted by Tribunal is exorbitant and it would suffice for non grant of amount under the head of non pecuniary loss and future loss of income. Learned counsel further submits that in the year of accident in the State of U.P., no future prospect was granted. Learned counsel further submits that even in the year of accident in 1984, the repo rate was not 12% and interest granted at the rate of 12 % is exorbitant.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. It is an admitted position of fact that the Insurance Company has accepted the award and has not challenged the same. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 08.07.1984 causing death of Nanak Chand who was 27 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.600/- per month which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.900/- per month as he was farmer. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 26-30, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Looking to the general trend even in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and another v. R.M.K Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1) 929, the addition of 40% can be granted and 1/3 deduction will have to be granted. The multiplier would be 17 to which looking to the pendency of the matter which has been pending here since more than 30 years. Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damages would suffice for claimants.

8. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.10,800/- ( Rs.900/- per month)

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs.4,3