Geeta vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
Smt. Geeta And Another - Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Others - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.635 OF 1998.
Decided On : 09-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : B.R. Singh
For the Respondents: Arun Kumar Shukla

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claims under Motor Vehicles Act - The appellant claimed compensation for the accidental death of Sahab Singh. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 1,48,000/-, which was contested. The main issues revolved around income determination, multiplier application, and classification of damages. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 8)

(B) Quantum of compensation - The Court recalculated the deceased's monthly income to be Rs. 3,500/- with an additional 40% for future prospects, after deductions, leading to a total compensation of Rs. 7,27,072/-. The interest was set at 7% until the judgment and 6% thereafter. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

(C) Principles of law - Apportionment of interest and investment instructions were detailed following prior judgments, determining how sums should be deposited with regard to taxation and claimant context. (Paras 12-15)

Facts of the case:
Sahab Singh, aged 30 at the time of death in an accident involving a tempo and a truck, was a contractor with a claim for appropriate compensation by his widow and son.

Findings of Court:
The Court revised the compensation amount and directed timely deposit by the insurance company under specified conditions.

Issues: The primary issues were proper assessment of income, grievance regarding reduced compensation, and fair interest rates.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for accurate income assessment for determining compensation, affirmed the multipliers in accordance with established precedents, and reinforced specific guidelines for interest and compensation deposition by Respondents.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation modified and recalculated.

Table of Content
1. determination of accident details and deceased's income. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments on compensation quantum and future earnings. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's recalculations of compensation and interest. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. final order modifying tribunal's decision. (Para 11 , 16 , 17)
5. guidelines for interest disbursement and deposit protocols. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgement and decree dated 7.11.1997 passed by M.A.C.T/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 164 of 1996. The accident is not in dispute. His death by the accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 05.03.1996 deceased Sahab Singh were travelling in Tempo no. U.T.M. 9478. At about 10:00 A.M infront of Shankar cold storage Bewar on G.T. road the said tempo collided with truck no. H.R. 26/6368 resulting in the death of many persons including Sahab Singh. It is alleged that truck no. H.R. 26/6368 was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver as a result of which accident occurred.

4. The deceased Sahab Singh was 30 years of age was a contractor in U.P. Jal Nigam and his legal heirs consist of his widow and minor son. Being a contractor in U.P. Jal Nigam there is a certificate issued at Ex. 39 Kha pg 16 which is mentioned in the judgment also but the tribunal did not considered this amount and held that the income can be considered to be Rs. 1500/-p.m to which the deduction was 1/3rd, 20% was granted as lum sum compensation and at the end applied multiplier of 15 and Rs. 1,48,000/- with 12% interest was awarded.

5. It is submitted by Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that the certificate proves that income of the deceased was Rs. 3696/- p.m to which as he was a contractor and in self employment 40% be added as per the judgment of Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K.Veluswami and other, 1962, SCR(1) 929 which had presidential values even in those days, the deduction of 20% lum sum has been deprecated by the Supreme Court time and again, the deduction of 1/3rd is not assailed, multiplier of 16 and non pecuniary damages be granted as per the judgment of the Apex Court National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 or as per the rules applied in U.P and the interest of 12% is maintained. It is further submitted by Sri B.R.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been granted.

6. Per contra, As against this, it is submitted by Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents that in absence of any proof except the certificate there is no error which calls for any interference, however, Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent could not point out as to non grant of future prospects and that multiplier of 16 be applied.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that his income can be considered to be Rs. 3500/- per month. To which as the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income to the deceased, deduction would have to be of 1/3rd, multiplier of 16 and Rs. 50,000/- for widow, Rs. 50,000/- for son. The oral objection of Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel is accepted.

8. Further, this Court feels that the quantum/compensation requires to be recalculated. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: