High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 05 UK CK 0245

Anita Bhatt & Others vs Lalu Ram & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 May 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Appeal From Order No.20 Of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 613 words

Alok Singh, J

1) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.350 of 2011, Smt. Anita & others vs. Sri Lalu Ram & others, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.6,27,000/-. It was directed that the insurance company shall pay the awarded amount to the claimants within two months from the date of the award and, in default of making the payment within the stipulated period, the award shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till realization.

2) Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants alleging therein that on 03.07.2011 at about 10:00 PM, deceased Anand Bhatt was going from Charubeta to Khatima on a motorcycle along with Mahesh Chandra. When they reached in front of the Easter factory, a truck bearing no.UP-21G-9744 dashed the motorcycle from back side, due to which, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died. At the time of accident, the deceased was 30 years of age and was earning a sum of Rs.18,25,000/- per month.

3) The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident causing death of the deceased. The Tribunal further found that the driver of the truck was and the motorcyclist were having valid licence. It was further held that the offending vehicle-truck and the motorcycle were being driven in terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition for a total sum of Rs.6,27,000/-.

4) The Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third of the annual income of the deceased towards the expenses which he would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.32,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,000/-with the multiplier of '16', the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,12,000/-(Rs.32,000 x 16 = Rs.5,12,000/-). Besides this, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1 Lakh for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses.

5) Keeping in view the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/- per annum. Vide impugned award dated 21.10.2013, the Tribunal has directed that a sum of Rs.1 Lakh shall be kept in the form of FDR in a nationalized bank in the name of Smt. Anita Bhatt for a period of 10 years. The Tribunal has not followed the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sushamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 (1) TAC 323 and, moreover, the Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for keeping a sum of Rs.1 Lakh in the form of FDR in the name of Smt. Anita Bhatt. The impugned order does not reflect as to whether the claimant-Anita Bhat was illiterate or semi-literate person. It transpires that the said amount had been kept in fixed deposit scheme for more than 5 years. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh, which was kept in the form of FDR, should be released forthwith. Therefore, the said FDR shall be liquidated forthwith in favour of Smt. Anita Bhatt.

6) In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs.