SMT. PREMLATA BAGHEL and OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS

FAFO/2861/2008

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals related to a motor accident claim where the deceased, Bhup Singh Baghel, was killed due to an alleged collision with a military truck. The claimants, representing the deceased, sought compensation from the Union of India, which was initially awarded Rs.6,00,914 by the Tribunal. The Union of India contested the involvement of its truck in the accident, claiming the rickshaw overturned independently and the truck was only involved later to assist the injured. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the truck's involvement but increased the compensation amount based on the deceased's income and future prospects, applying a multiplier for dependents and adjusting non-pecuniary damages.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687023 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C AND; MANOJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PAL
• Keywords: Compensation; Interest rate adjustment; Negligence; Motor Accident Claim; Rash Driving; Fatal Injuries
• Section: 205; 6

Judgement Text

" (A.F.R.) Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2861 of 2008 Appellant :- Smt. Premlata Baghel And Others Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.K.Pal Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3097 of 2010 Appellant :- Union Of India And Another Respondent :- Smt. Premlata Baghel And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J. 1. These two appeals filed against the same judgment dated 29.5.2008, passed by MACT/Additional District Judge, FTC-3, Firozabad in MAC No.205 of 2004 (Smt.Premlata Baghel and another vs. Union of India and another) for which learned Tribunal passed award for Rs.6,00,914/- with 6% per annum rate of interest. 2. One FAFO bearing No.2861 of 2008 is filed on behalf of claimants for enhancement amount of award of fine and the second FAFO bearing No.3097 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of Union of India for setting aside the impugned judgment. 3. Heard Shri R.K.Srivastava, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri S.K.Pal, learned counsel for the appellant in FAFO No.2861 of 2008, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in FAFO No.3097 of 2010 and perused the record. 4. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that claimants filed a motor accident claim petition against Union of India for the death of Bhup Singh Baghel, who was Advocate in Allahabad High Court and District Court Firozabad. It is averred in petition that on 22.4.2004 at about 4:15 p.m., the deceased was going to his residence by rickshaw. When he reached near Indira Gandhi Crossing Civil Lines, a Military Truck bearing No.99-D- 124834-ACLI-45 came from opposite side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the impact of accident, deceased fell on the ground and sustained fatal injuries due to which he died. Union of India filed written statement and denied the factum of accident by the aforesaid Military Truck and it is contended that the rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling overturned the rickshaw. The aforesaid truck was passing through that place and for helping the injured/deceased, the driver of the aforesaid truck put him in the truck and carried to the hospital. Subsequently, claimants involved the truck falsely in order to claim the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was not involved in the said accident. The driver of the truck was not named in the first information report. Learned counsel further submitted that it was a matter of chance that when the deceased fell on the ground by overturning the rickshaw, the truck in question was passing-by. He next submitted that the driver of the truck and other Military-personnel, who was travelling in the truck are produced before the Tribunal as DW1, DW2 and DW3. All have said in their respective statements that when their truck reached to the spot, a man was lying on the ground and on the request of nearby people, they put him in the truck and got admitted in the hospital in order to save his life, but the aforesaid truck was falsely implicated and involved in this matter just to claim the compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no log-book entry of the truck, which could show that the truck was plied at the time of accident. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that against the driver of the aforesaid truck, charge-sheet has been filed. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the truck was involved in the accident. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the Union of India that first information report was lodged against unknown person and the driver of the truck in question is not named cannot be accepted at all because it is not sine qua non that the person, who filed the FIR should mention the name of the driver of the vehicle rather it is not expected that the complainant/informant must know the name of the driver of the vehicle. It is more than enough even if number of the vehicle is mentioned in the FIR. It is also pertinent to note that Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver of the said truck. The rickshaw puller/owner, in which the deceased was travelling was the best witness of this accident. He was produced by the claimants as PW5, wherein he has stated in his statement that deceased was travelling in his rickshaw, which was dashed by the aforesaid truck due to which the deceased fell on the ground and the wheel of the truck ran over him. He has also stated that truck was stopped by the crowed gathered on the spot and his rickshaw was also damaged in the accident. This witness is an independent witness having no personal interest in the matter. Hence, this plea of Union of India is not tenable that a truck in question was not involved in the accident. One more argument is placed by Union of India that rickshaw puller was not made party to the petition, but we do not impress with this argument as rickshaw puller is not a tort-feasor and, therefore, non- joining of the rickshaw puller makes no difference. Consequently, in view of above observations, the appeal preferred by Union of India is liable to be dismissed. 8. Now we come to the issue of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal. In this regard, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that award passed by the Tribunal is on lower side and no amount is awarded towards the future loss of income. It is also submitted that grant of non- pecuniary damage is also on the lower side and the Tribunal has awarded only 6% rate of interest, which should have been higher. 10. No other argument was placed by the claimants on the issue of amount of compensation. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India opposed the arguments placed by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that Tribunal has made correct assessment of the income of the deceased and sufficient compensation has been awarded in accordance with law. Therefore, it needs no interference by this Court. 12. Perusal of the record shows that income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.63,566/- per annum by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has arrived at this income on the basis of average of three years income as shown in Income Tax Returns of the deceased, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Union of India and this income is justified also keeping in view the income shown in ITRs of the deceased, but learned Tribunal has not granted any sum towards loss of income. As the deceased was 46 years old, therefore, according to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2013) LawSuit (SC) 1093, 25% shall be added towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the fact that there were four dependants of the deceased and out of them one dependant was minor, multiplier of 13 is applied, which is in consonance with the judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, which are, according to us, are on the lower side as per the judgment of Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). 13. Claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Apart from it, the wife of the deceased shall be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. These non- pecuniary damages shall have incremental effect @ 10% every three years. Hence we award a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the head of non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the claimants as per observations made by above is computed herein below: A. Annual Income : Rs.63,566/- per annum B. Amount towards future prospects @ 25 % : Rs.15,891/- C. Total Income : Rs.79,457/- D. Income after deduction 1/3 : Rs.52,972/- E. Multiplier applicable :13 F. Total Loss of Dependency : Rs.6,88,636/- G. Amount under non-pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/- H. TOTAL COMPENSATION : Rs.7,88,636/- 14. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under: \"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court.\" 15. Learned Tribunal has awarded rate of interest as 9% per annum but we are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the light of the above judgment. 16. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 17. Consequently, the appeal of Union of India bearing FAFO No.3097 of 2010 is dismissed and the appeal filed by claimants bearing FAFO No.2861 of 2008 is partly allowed. (Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Dr.Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2022 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by LALIT TRIPATHI Date: 2022.02.22 09:44:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "