SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt.Omvati and Another - Appellant
Versus
Viresh Kumar and Another - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE NO. - 918 OF 2007.
Decided On : 11-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : S.C.Kesarwani,Krishna Mohan Rai.

Court enhanced compensation for a deceased minor's family based on judicial precedent, establishing a necessary alignment of compensation with established standards.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Award for compensation - Child death due to motor accident - Tribunal initially awarded Rs.1,60,000/- with 7% interest, later enhanced to Rs.4,70,000/- following the precedent set in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (2022) - The court found the previous tribunal amount inadequate given the child’s death. (Paras 10-15)

(B) Appeal - Delay condonation - Delay of 147 days explained bona fide, condoned for appeal to proceed. (Paras 2-8)

Facts of the case:
The appeal concerns the death of a 6-year-old minor, with the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was partially allowed; the compensation was increased based on consistent judicial precedent regarding minor deaths.

Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal was sufficient given the circumstances of the child's death.

Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that compensation must be aligned with established judicial standards for similar cases, leading to an enhancement in the awarded amount.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation modified to Rs.4,70,000/- with 6% interest.

Table of Content
1. delay condonation process (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. challenge to compensation awarded (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments for compensation enhancement (Para 13 , 14)
4. court's decision on compensation (Para 15 , 16)
5. final order on the appeal (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Saral Srivastava, J.

Delay Condonation Application No.156512 of 2007:-.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 147 days.

3. The appellants have filed the delay condonation application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. The appellants have explained the delay in filing the appeal in paragraphs No.3 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.

5. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. No counter affidavit has been filed to the delay condonation application.

6. The appellants have properly explained the delay in filing the appeal and delay in filing the appeal is bona fide.

7. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time.

8. The delay condonation application is allowed.

Order on Appeal:-

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 18.10.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah in M.A.C.P. No.229/2003.

11. In the instant case, the claimant claimed for enhancement of award for the death of a child Bhupendra Kumar alias Upendra Kumar aged about 6 years.

12. The tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- lump sum along with 7% interest.

13. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shaym Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317, the Apex Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- in case of a minor child. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra), therefore, the same amount of compensation shall be awarded to the claimant/appellants.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the deceased was only 6 years of age and, therefore, no loss of income was suffered by the claimant/appellants and the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,60,000/- lump sum as compensation to the claimant/appellants.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra) has awarded in case of a minor Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation and considering the fact that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra), this Court also enhances the compensation from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-.

16. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till the amount is paid. The respondent no.2-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimant/appellant within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

17. For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified to the extent indicated above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top