Smt. Shaifali Aggrawal & Others V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others

FAFO/1274/2001

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Shaifali Aggrawal and others, seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of Shailendra Kumar Aggrawal in an accident. The Tribunal had initially awarded Rs.13 lacs but reduced the compensation by Rs.5 lacs based on the reasoning that the deceased's wife was a working woman and capable of supporting the family, which the appellants contested as illegal. The appellants argued for a compensation of Rs.12,84,000, citing the deceased's annual income of Rs.1,30,000 and the applicability of a 25% future prospects increase as per the Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi. The respondents defended the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for compensation to be just and not a bonanza. The court, after considering the arguments and relevant legal precedents, decided in favor of the appellants, enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,06,662.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687571 (HC-NOT SPECIFIED)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V C DIXIT; VINAY KHARE
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT DAGA; SUMIT DAGA
• Keywords: Accident; Death; Enhancement of compensation; Future prospects; Multiplier

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 24 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1274 of 2001 Appellant :- Smt.Shaifali Aggrawal & Others Respondent :- The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Sumit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- V.C.Dixit,Vinay Khare Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri V.C. Dixit learned counsel for the respondent no.7. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant- appellant with a prayer for enhancement of compensation. The claimant-appellant claimed compensation of Rs.12,84,000/- for the death of Shailendra Kumar Aggrawal, who died in an accident on 23.1.2000. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding of the Tribunal that the reduction of compensation by Rs.5 lacs is illegal. He submits that the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record held the income of deceased to be Rs.1,30,000/- per annum. The Tribunal for computing the compensation applied multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/3rd from the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus the total compensation came to be Rs.13 lacs. He submitted that the computation of compensation was rightly made by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal illegally reduced compensation by Rs.5 lacs. He submits that the Tribunal reduced the compensation on the ground that wife of the deceased was a working lady and was capable of earning to feed her family, which is not sustainable in law. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680 the age of the deceased was 41 years, therefore, the claimants are also entitled for 25% future prospects. Per contra, Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the reasons given by the Tribunal that the wife of the deceased was a working woman and was capable of earning to feed her family was cogent one, and thus the Tribunal was perfectly justified in reducing the compensation, inasmuch as, the purpose of compensation is to mitigate the hardships of the family and it should be just and proper compensation and not a bonanza for the family. He submits that the deceased was 41 years of age and, therefore, the compensation should be computed by applying the multiplier of 14 considering the age of deceased. I have considered rival submission of the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has determined the income of deceased to be Rs.1,30,000/- on the basis of the income tax return of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant also agrees that the multiplier of 14 should be applied for computing the compensation considering the age of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent could not defend the reasoning of the Tribunal for deducting Rs.5 lacs from the compensation, inasmuch as, the ground on which the Tribunal has reduced the compensation is not sustainable in law. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the claimants are entitled to 25% future prospects on the income of the deceased is sustainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). If 25% towards future prospect is added in the income of deceased, the total income for computing the compensation come to be Rs. 1,62,500/-. After deducting 1/3rd from the aforesaid and by applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation come to be Rs.15,06,662. Thus, claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,06,662. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of institution of claim petition. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Ashutosh Pandey "