Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P.S.R.T.C., FARUKHABAD versus SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P.S.R.T.C., Farukhabad v. Sanjay Sharma And Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 369 of 2000 [2004] RD-AH 1429 (17 November 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

FAFO No. 369 of 2000

National Insurance company ......................................Appellant

vs

Ram Sumitra Dubey...............................................Respondent

HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J

HON'BLE  K.N. OJHA, J

1. Ram Sumitra Dubey,  the claimant, is an advocate. According to him he was going to court on 30.4.1996 by public transport namely tempo. An accident took place in which he was injured. He filed claim petition which was decreed on 15.12.1999 for Rs. 1,76,434/ with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hence the present appeal.

2. We have heard Sri V.K. Birla, counsel for the appellant and Sri Sharad Malviya for the claimant. The Tribunal below has recorded a finding that the accident took place due to fault of the driver of the tempo. There is nothing to show that this finding is illegal. It is upheld.

3. The claimant claimed that he is an advocate and has further claimed that he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. He has admitted that he does not pay income tax. He also did not file list of the cases in which he had appeared. He was travelling in Tempo. In these circumstances, the income stated by the claimant can not be believed. There was nothing on record to ascertain the income of the appellant. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to take the notional income as mentioned in Schedule II of Motor Vehicle Act,. 1988 as income of the claimant. The claimant has stated in his statement in 1999 that he was 50 years of age and as such his age on the date of accident was 47 years. In view of this the multiplier of 13 should be applied. The claimant has also filed a medical certificate in which his disability is  shown to be 40%. He is entitled to 40% of the total income earned namely 40% of 13x15,000/- or Rs. 78,000/-. The Tribunal below has mentioned that the claimant has spent Rs. 150-/ for X-ray, Rs. 1228.70/- and Rs. 55.60 for medicine. The claimant has also made statement that he could not work for six months. He is also entitled to his income for six months namely Rs. 7,500/- . Thus the claimant is entitled for total amount Rs. 78,000.00 + 150.00 + 1228.70 + 55.60 + 7,500.00 = 86,9343/- (or Rs. 87000/-). He is only entitled to 6% interest on the amount awarded from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

4. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed.

Date: 17.11.2004

SKS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.