Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jasdai Devi and Others – Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 227 of 2019
Decided On : 20-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Deepak Rawat.
For the Respondents: Vijay Khanduri.
IMPORTANT POINT
Interest cannot be awarded on future income prospects in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding compensation claims, emphasizing the calculation of future prospects and the inapplicability of interest on future income.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the insurer against an award of compensation for a fatal accident involving the deceased, who was the sole earning member of his family, resulting from the negligent driving of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation but modified it to exclude interest on future prospects, agreeing with both parties on this point.
Issues: Whether the deceased died due to negligent driving, if the vehicle was driven in violation of insurance terms, and the entitlement of claimants to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while compensation was warranted, interest on future income was not applicable as it pertains to income not yet accrued.
Result: The appeal is allowed partly, modifying the award to exclude interest on future prospects.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the insurer challenging the Award dated 01.03.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli at Gopeshwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 25 of 2017, Smt. Jasdai Devi and Another vs. Shri Narendra Singh and Another, by which, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,79,700/- (Rupees seven lakh seventy nine thousand seven hundred) as a compensation along with 6% per annum interest.
2. The case of the respondents-claimants is that on 10.04.2015, the deceased Vasudev Singh alias Basudev was going to his house from Dehradun by Vehicle No. UA07M-0796. The said vehicle was driving by its driver Surendra Singh. At about 4.00 p.m., the said vehicle fell down in 100 meter ditch due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver in which Vasudev Singh alias Basudev and the driver Surendra Singh died on the spot. The post-mortem examination of the deceased Vasudev Singh alias Basudev was conducted at Community Health Centre, Devprayag. The claimants are legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was about 28 years of the age at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. The deceased was the sole earning member of his family.
3. The Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle had filed their written statements.
4. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
“(i) Whether deceased Vasudev Singh alias Basudev died in a motor accident on 10.04.2015 at about 4.00 p.m. at place Bageshwar Shivmurti near Pantgaon Gadhera 08 km. back from Devprayag, situated within the limits of Police Station-Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal by the rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle no. U.A.07M-0796? If so, its effect?
(ii) Whether at the time of accident vehicle no. U.A.07M-0796 was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance police? If so, its effect?
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If yes, to what amount and from whom?”
5. The claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle filed documentary evidence. The claimant Hukum Singh (PW1), the witness Mahaveer Singh (PW2) and the owner of the offending vehicle Narendra Singh were examined in the oral examination.
6. The Insurance Company had not produced any oral or documentary evidence.
7. I have heard Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company and Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.
8. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the heads as follows:
| 1. | Loss of annual income | Rs. 5,250.00 X 12 = Rs. 63,000.00 |
| 2. | Add 40 percent of per month income of the deceased towards future prospects | Rs. 5,250.00 + Rs. 2,100.00 = Rs. 7,350.00 or say Rs. 88,200.00 per annum. |
| 3. | 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased | Rs. 88,200.00 - Rs. 44,100.00 = Rs. 44,100.00 |
| 4. | Multiplier applicable | 17 |
| 5. | Total amount of loss of dependency | Rs. 44,100.00 X 17 = Rs. 7,49,700.00 |
| 6. | Funeral Expenses | Rs. 15,000.00 |
| 7. | Loss of Estate | Rs. 15,000.00 |
| 8. | Total compensation | Rs. 7,79,700.00 |
9. The Tribunal has also awarded 6% per annum interest on the said compensation amount.
10. Only one contention has been raised by Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, that no interest can be awarded on future prospect, as interest cannot be awarded for something/income which is due in future. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment dated 24.06.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 3325 of 2016, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Seema Devi and Others.
11. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Advocate, appearing for the respondents-claimants, also agrees with the said contention of Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate.
12. The
