Court No. - 53

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. -

1012 of 2018

Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondent :- Chunna Singh And 2 Ors

Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- V.K.S. Somvanshi

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri

V.K.S. Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1

of 2018

There is delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons

stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit, delay is

condoned.

Order on Appeal

Sri Amit Singh has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by award dated

12.03.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that learned claims

tribunal has erred in computing 50% of the income towards

future prospect in place of 40% inasmuch as the deceased was

admittedly not in a permanent salaried job. Secondly, it is

submitted placing reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and other

as reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 that in case of children in the

age bracket of 10-15 years, Supreme Court has held that their

contribution to the family income should be construed at Rs.

12,000/- per annum and in case of Lata Wadhwa and others vs.

State of Bihar and others as reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197,

multiplier of 11 has been applied. However, the Supreme Court

taking into consideration the fact that rupee value has come

down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income

of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was

fixed at Rs. 15,000/- considered the notional income at Rs.

30,000/- and taking the age of the mother at 36 years applying

the legal principles laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and

others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 had applied a multiplier of 15 for

a boy who had died at the age of 10 years.

However, in the present case, facts are different. It is an

admitted fact that the date of birth of the deceased is 10.05.1999

and accident took place on 17.04.2015 i.e., on the date of the

accident, the deceased was more than age of 15 years.

Admittedly, she was a student of 12th class. She was

blossoming to become an adult having potential to not only

serve the family but also the society when cruel hand of destiny

snatched her away. Therefore, the facts of the case of Kishan

Gopal and Lata Wadhwa being different, ratio of these cases

will not be applicable.

In view of such facts, no fault can be attributed to the reasoning

applied by learned claims tribunal in assessing notional income

of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. However, fact of the

matter is that by no stretch of the imagination, addition of 50%

of the notional income towards future prospects can be

permitted to be added in the light of the law laid down in case

of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others as reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680

and addition will only to the tune of 40%.

In view of such facts, when national income of the deceased as

has been taken by the tribunal is taken at Rs. 6,000/- per month,

then 50% is to be appropriated towards the amount which

deceased would have spent on self, then monthly dependency

will come out to Rs. 3,000/- per month on which there will be

addition of 40% on account of future prospects taking monthly

dependency to Rs. 4,200/- (four thousand two hundred rupees)

per month or Rs. 50,400/- (fifty thousand and four hundred

rupees) per annum.

The learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16

in place of 18 inasmuch, as per the law laid down in case of

Sarla Verma (supra) multiplier of 18 is applicable to the cases

were age band is 15 to 20 years. Therefore, when this multiplier

of 18 is applied, then the compensation