Smt. Nasira and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company & Others, whereby

the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Under Challenge is the award dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki in M.A.C. No.526 of 2007 in Re: Smt. Nasira and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,500/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

5. Being aggrieved with the quantum of award, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimants / appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that before the learned Tribunal, the claimant No.1 i.e. wife of the deceased (appellant No.1 herein) had filed an affidavit indicating that her husband namely Shri Gulam Rasool was engaged in the grain business apart from agricultural work and thus was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month. Though no specific income certificate was produced before the learned Tribunal yet the statement and the affidavit as filed by the claimant No.1 pertaining to the income of her deceased husband remained un- rebutted.

7. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the annual income of her husband i.e. the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deduction of 1/3rd has indicated that the income would be treated to be Rs.10,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 16 has awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- along with certain amount towards consortium etc. to the claimants.

8. The contention is that when the statement of the claimant No.1 / wife of the deceased and the affidavit that was filed before the learned Tribunal has remained un-rebutted, as such, the learned Tribunal has patently erred in reducing the income of her husband.

9. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal has patently erred in granting lesser amounts towards consortium, funeral expenses etc. which merit to be enhanced as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.).

10. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, as such, the Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

11. From a perusal of record, it emerges that the controversy as involved in the instant appeal pertains to the income of the deceased. As per the statement of the wife of the deceased, who was the claimant No.1, and as per the affidavit which was un-rebutted, the income of the deceased was indicated as Rs.6000/- per month.

12. The learned Tribunal has disregarded the said income and has held it to be an amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deduction of 1/3 amount has held to be an amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum and after applying a multiplier of 16, has granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.) in claim application pertaining to the year 2004 has held that where the wife of the claimant had entered into the witness box and had ascertained that the deceased was earning Rs.140/- per day and even if the exaggeration was to be ignored, the figure arrived at by the High Court in the said case was Rs.100/- per day (or Rs.3,000/- per month) which was found to be reasonable.

14. In the instant, as already indicated above, the learned Tribunal has held the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum which makes it an amount of Rs.1250/- per month or Rs.42/- per day.

15. As already indicated above, the statement of the wife of the deceased i.e. the claimant No.1 and the affidavit that was filed by her was unrebutted which indicated the monthly income of Rs.6,000/-.

16. Even if Rs.6,000/- is taken to be at the higher side, this Court find it reasonable to put the income @ Rs.4000/- per month considering that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra) upheld an income pertaining to claim application filed in the year 2004 of Rs.3,000/- per month while the instant case pertains to 2007.

17. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009 (6) SCC 121, as the number of dependent family members are between 4 to 6 (six in the instant case) the deduction would be 1/4th of the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month which would be Rs.3,000/- per month after deduction. After applying the multiplier of 16, as has been applied by the learned Tribunal, the awarded amount would stand at Rs.5,76,000/-.

18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram AIR OnLine 2018 SC 1249, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled towards loss of consortium an amount of Rs.40,000/- each. The amounts towards loss of estate and funeral expenses stands enhanced to Rs.15,000/- on each of the two heads.

19. The insurance company would calculate the amount as aforesaid and deposit the same before the learned Tribunal after adjustment of the amount already paid within six weeks from today. Upon deposit, the learned Tribunal shall inform the claimants about the same and to permit the claimants to withdraw the said amount as per rules.

20. Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned Tribunal within a week.

21. In view of the aforesaid, the amount stands modified and the appeal stands disposed of.

22. Trial court record be returned back. Order Date :- 14.5.2025/S. Shivhare SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Under Challenge is the award dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki in M.A.C. No.526 of 2007 in Re: Smt. Nasira and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,500/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

5. Being aggrieved with the quantum of award, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimants / appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that before the learned Tribunal, the claimant No.1 i.e. wife of the deceased (appellant No.1 herein) had filed an affidavit indicating that her husband namely Shri Gulam Rasool was engaged in the grain business apart from agricultural work and thus was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month. Though no specific income certificate was produced before the learned Tribunal yet the statement and the affidavit as filed by the claimant No.1 pertaining to the income of her deceased husband remained un- rebutted.

7. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the annual income of her husband i.e. the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deduction of 1/3rd has indicated that the income would be treated to be Rs.10,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 16 has awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- along with certain amount towards consortium etc. to the claimants.

8. The contention is that when the statement of the claimant No.1 / wife of the deceased and the affidavit that was filed before the learned Tribunal has remained un-rebutted, as such, the learned Tribunal has patently erred in reducing the income of her husband.

9. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal has patently erred in granting lesser amounts towards consortium, funeral expenses etc. which merit to be enhanced as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.).

10. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, as such, the Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

11. From a perusal of record, it emerges that the controversy as involved in the instant appeal pertains to the income of the deceased. As per the statement of the wife of the deceased, who was the claimant No.1, and as per the affidavit which was un-rebutted, the income of the deceased was indicated as Rs.6000/- per month.

12. The learned Tribunal has disregarded the said income and has held it to be an amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deduction of 1/3 amount has held to be an amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum and after applying a multiplier of 16, has granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.) in claim application pertaining to the year 2004 has held that where the wife of the claimant had entered into the witness box and had ascertained that the deceased was earning Rs.140/- per day and even if the exaggeration was to be ignored, the figure arrived at by the High Court in the said case was Rs.100/- per day (or Rs.3,000/- per month) which was found to be reasonable.

14. In the instant, as already indicated above, the learned Tribunal has held the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per annum which makes it an amount of Rs.1250/- per month or Rs.42/- per day.

15. As already indicated above, the statement of the wife of the deceased i.e. the claimant No.1 and the affidavit that was filed by her was unrebutted which indicated the monthly income of Rs.6,000/-.

16. Even if Rs.6,000/- is taken to be at the higher side, this Court find it reasonable to put the income @ Rs.4000/- per month considering that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra) upheld an income pertaining to claim application filed in the year 2004 of Rs.3,000/- per month while the instant case pertains to 2007.

17. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009 (6) SCC 121, as the number of dependent family members are between 4 to 6 (six in the instant case) the deduction would be 1/4th of the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month which would be Rs.3,000/- per month after deduction. After applying the multiplier of 16, as has been applied by the learned Tribunal, the awarded amount would stand at Rs.5,76,000/-.

18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram AIR OnLine 2018 SC 1249, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled towards loss of consortium an amount of Rs.40,000/- each. The amounts towards loss of estate and funeral expenses stands enhanced to Rs.15,000/- on each of the two heads.

19. The insurance company would calculate the amount as aforesaid and deposit the same before the learned Tribunal after adjustment of the amount already paid within six weeks from today. Upon deposit, the learned Tribunal shall inform the claimants about the same and to permit the claimants to withdraw the said amount as per rules.

20. Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned Tribunal within a week.

21. In view of the aforesaid, the amount stands modified and the appeal stands disposed of.

22. Trial court record be returned back. Order Date :- 14.5.2025/S. Shivhare SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench