Smt. Mohini Devi and Others v. Rajendra Prasad and Another

Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 907 of 2000 Appellant :- Smt. Mohini Devi And Others Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation.

¶3Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has contended that the accident had taken place on 27.12.1998, and therefore, the tribunal has erred in law in assessing the compensation on the basis of notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is submitted that at the relevant time, income of a person was not less than to Rs.1500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum, and accordingly, it is submitted that the award of compensation is on lower side, and therefore, tribunal should have computed the compensation by taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.18,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that considering the age of the deceased, the claimants/appellants are also entitled to 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is further submitted that that there were eight dependents upon the deceased, therefore, considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121, tribunal should have deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper as there was no proof of income of the deceased. Thus, the submission is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case is just and proper and based on proper appreciation of facts and does not call for any interference by this Court in appeal.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6The accident is stated to have taken place in the year 1998. It is a common knowledge that in the year 1998, even the income of a person was Rs.1500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. Considering the said fact, this Court holds that the compensation should be computed by taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.18,000/- per annum in place of Rs.15,000/-.

¶7The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in respect of future prospect has also got force in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, following the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court, claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect considering the age of the deceased.

¶8The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants with regard to deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has got substance. Thus, considering the dependents upon the deceased, it is provided that 1/5th should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased from the income of the deceased for computation of compensation

¶9It is further provided that the entire amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of award.

¶10For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above. Insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant/claimant within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to cost. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 SS/R.S. Tiwari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad