Smt. Kusuma Pal And Others V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

FAFO/2365/2003

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the claimants, Smt. Kusuma Pal and others, against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenging the judgment and award dated 30.05.2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Kanpur Nagar. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,16,000 with an interest rate of 8% per annum for the death of a 35-year-old man, who was not a tortfeasor but died from injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. The main issues in the appeal were the quantum of compensation and the applicable interest rate. The court found that the income of the deceased should be considered as Rs.3,000 per month, and applying the multiplier method and adjustments for future prospects and personal expenses, recalculated the compensation to Rs. 6,14,000. The court also adjusted the interest rate to 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition until the award, and 6% thereafter until the amount is deposited.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805804 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Laws Referred To: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, E.C. Act, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHD SIDDIQUI
• Keywords: Interest rate adjustment; Motor Accident; Multiplier method; Negligence; Quantum of compensation
• Section: 432

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2365 of 2003 Appellant :- Smt. Kusuma Pal And Others Respondent :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Mr. Srish Srivastava holding brief of Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material brought on record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 30.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.432 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is decided in favour of the appellant herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them by the Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is the quantum. 4. The accident took place in the year 2002. The deceased was not a tortfeasor. He suffered injuries and died out of the vehicular accident. He was 35 years of age which was conclude in the claim petition. He was being a cosmetic shop and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. However nothing was proved that he tax returns were filed before the Tribunal which unfortunately have not been believed by the Tribunal for the reasons best known to the Tribunal. The income shown in the said tax returns that the judgments of the Apex Court are very clear that this is a beneficial piece of legislation, if we take the income to be Rs.16,000/- as per the income tax returns and as per the judgment of the Apex Court, his income can be considered to be Rs.5,000/- per month. However being more conservative, I am accepting the submission of Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondents that income can be considered to Rs.3,000/- 5. It is submitted that the deceased being 35 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 15 granted by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. 6. It is submitted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent that the income which has not been proved cannot be more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. He could not point out that the additional amount under the head of future prospects has not to be added as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Setthi and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017. It has not been shown by counsel for the respondent that the said amount cannot be enhanced. The amount awarded under the conventional head is also not required to be enhanced is submitted by counsel for the respondent. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been Rs.3000/- per month namely Rs.36,000/- per year to which as the deceased was 35 years of age, 40% of the income requires to be added in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) which would come to Rs.36,000 + 14,400 = 50,400/- out of which 1/3rd requires to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and, hence, the annual datum figure available to the family is Rs.33,600/- rounded up to Rs.34,000/-. As the deceased was in the age bracket of 30-35 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that Rs.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads as it is matter of 2002. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 34000 x 16 +70,000 = 6,14,000/-. 8. The rate of interest will have to be enhanced and I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent that the Rules will apply. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 have interpreted the Rules, which has been followed by this Court time and again, will enure for the benefit of the appellant and, therefore the rate of interest would be 9% as held in catena of decision of this High Court. 9. I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent that after the appeal is filed and is kept pending the rate of interest requires to be decreased. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 11. This Court is thankful to both the counsels to see that this very old matter is disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Shubhankar "