Smt. Guriya @ Mithlesh & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar & Anr.

Appellant :- Smt. Guriya @ Mithlesh And Others Respondent :- Vipin Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.N. Yadav, Krishna Mohan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

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

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

Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has contended that the accident had taken place on 27.03.2003, and therefore, the tribunal has erred in law in assessing the compensation holding the income to be Rs.24,000/- per annum. It is submitted that at the relevant time, an agriculturist's income was not less than to Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.30,000/- 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.30,000/- 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. Lastly, it is submitted that no amount towards conventional heads has been awarded by the tribunal, though, the tribunal should have awarded Rs.10,000/- towards conventional heads.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that 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.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

The accident is stated to have taken place in the year 2003. It is a common knowledge that in the year 2003, even the income of an agriculturist was Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.30,000/- 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.30,000/- per annum in place of Rs.24,000/-.

The 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.

It is further provided that the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages.

The entire amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum instead of 4% from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of award.