HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 25.09.2019 Delivered on 11.12.2019 Court No. - 34 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 819 of 1998 Appellant :- [ENTITY] And Another Respondent :- Smt. [ENTITY] And Others Counsel for Appellant :- [ENTITY],J.
1. This defendant's appeal under [SECTION] of [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has arisen from judgment and award dated 01.09.1992 passed by Sri [ENTITY], Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Vth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in [CASE NUMBER] (Smt. [ENTITY] and others Vs. State of U. P. and another) awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to claimant-respondent against defendant-appellant. Claimant-respondent has also been held entitled for interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.
2. [ENTITY] (deceased) was standing and talking somewhere on south side of road near Mohaddipur Nahar at Gorakhpur-Kasya Road on 17.03.1994 at 7.30 PM when Tractor No.U.P.K.1733, driven by its driver very fast in rash and negligent manner and without pressing horn, hit him causing serious injuries resulting into his death at about 10.45 PM in the same night. At the time of death he was 34 years of age. Claimant-respondents filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.9,15,400/- but Tribunal has awarded only Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondents though called in revise.
4. Learned Standing Counsel while assailing the judgment and award contended that amount of compensation awarded to claimant-respondent is excessive and not founded on valid principles laid down in Statute as well as various authorities of Supreme Court.
5. The only point for determination which has arisen in this appeal is whether amount of compensation payable to claimant-respondent as per judgment and award of Tribunal is validly determined or not?
6. I propose to consider this question in respect to all relevant factors namely, notional income, future prospects, multiplier, deduction towards personal expenses, loss under conventional heads etc.
7. I find that Tribunal instead of applying multiplier as per Statute has calculated compensation in a very strange manner. It has assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs.1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd has assessed income Rs.1000/- per months i.e. Rs.12000/- per annum.
8. I find that here Tribunal has committed manifest error in deducting 1/3rd, inasmuch as, it has ignored the fact that deceased had seven dependents i.e. widow, four children and two parents. As per judgment in [ENTITY] and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, AIR 2009 SC 3104, in para 14, Court has said where number of dependents in which family are more than six, then only 1/5th deduction should have been applied. As such, actual monthly income of deceased comes to Rs.1500 - Rs. 300 (i.e. 1/5th of Rs.1500/) = Rs.1200/- per month
9. Further, Tribunal has held that possibility of his life would have been 65 years, therefore, loss of earning is for 31 years and that has been applied to monthly income so as to bring total amount of income 31 years as Rs.3,72,000/-. This application of multiplier is not correct. However, it has also not awarded any amount towards future prospects.
10. Since, deceased was in a private firm, as per para 61 (iv) of Constitution Bench judgment in [PRECEDENT], Tribunal should have applied an addition of 40% of established income towards future prospects and that brings per month income of deceased to;
Rs.1200/- + 40% of Rs.12,00/- = Rs.1680/- per month.
Thus, total annual income of deceased would be 1680/- X 12 = Rs.20,160/-
11. As per judgment of [ENTITY] and others (supra) as affirmed in [PRECEDENT], multiplier applicable in case in hand would have been 16. Now applying multiplier of 16, total amount comes to Rs.20,160 X 16 = Rs.3,22,560/-
12. Constitution Bench in [PRECEDENT] (supra) said that reasonable figures under conventional heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be allowed. Recently in [CASE NUMBER] arising from [CASE NUMBER] decided on 09.12.2019, [PRECEDENT], a two Judges Bench of Supreme Court has computed the compensation payable under aforesaid Acts as under :
Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium = Rs.40,000/- Loss of love and affection = Rs.50,000/- i.e. Total amount = Rs.1,20,000/-
13. Tribunal, however, has allowed only Rs.28,000/- in all towards aforesaid conventional heads, which is clearly inadequate. As such, awarding Rs.1,20,000 towards conventional heads as aforesaid, total amount of compensation payable to claimant-respondent comes to Rs.3,22,560/- + Rs.1,20,000/- = Rs.4,42,560/-.
14. However, Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- to claimant-respondent and since there is no appeal by claimant-respondent, therefore, I may not increase the compensation, but appellant's claim that amount of compensation should be reduced, cannot be accepted. Thus, point for determination is answered against appellant.
15. Appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
Order Date :- 11.12.2019 [ENTITY]