# Bony Dubey v. M/S Shyam Bidi Works & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-03
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3336 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bony-dubey-v-m-s-shyam-bidi-works-anr-48106
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-Enhancement of compensationappellant was minor t the time of accident,
he became permanent disabled -Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 15,72,848/- together
with
interest
@
6%
per
annum
as
compensation but not granted future loss of
income-Since, the deceased will fall within
the category of self-employed, 40% shall be
added towards future prospects as per Apex
Court guidelines -By applying the multiplier
of 15, the total loss of dependency is
assessed
Rs.
24,80,000/-Thus,
the
claimants
entitled
for
increase
of
compensation a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/-from
Rs 15,72,848/- with a modified rate of
interest @ 7.5% per annum.(Paras 1 to 12)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
directed to be paid to claimant no.2 on the
total payable compensation determined
above from the date of institution of the
claim petition till realization of the
payment.

143. This FAFO is, accordingly,
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

144. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A156
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3336 of 2013

Bony Dubey ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Shyam Bidi Works & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amit Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Sri Suyash Agarwal

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-Enhancement of compensationappellant was minor t the time of accident,
he became permanent disabled -Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 15,72,848/- together
with
interest
@
6%
per
annum
as
compensation but not granted future loss of
income-Since, the deceased will fall within
the category of self-employed, 40% shall be
added towards future prospects as per Apex
Court guidelines -By applying the multiplier
of 15, the total loss of dependency is
assessed
Rs.
24,80,000/-Thus,
the
claimants
entitled
for
increase
of
compensation a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/-from
Rs 15,72,848/- with a modified rate of
interest @ 7.5% per annum.(Paras 1 to 12)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. K. Sureshh Vs New India Assr. Co. Ltd.
(2012) 2 SCC 274

2. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr. (2014) 11 SCC 178

3. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand & ors. (2020) 1 TAC
705 SC

4. Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mukesh
Kumar (2021) 0 AJEL-SC 67851

5. Jithendran Vs New India Assr. Co. Ltd. (2021)
0 AIJEL-SC 67944

6. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors.
(2019) 92 TAC 705 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the judgment and order
impugned.

2. This First Appeal From Order has
been filed under section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
'Act, 1988') by appellant-Bony Dubey,
being aggrieved by judgment and award
dated
05.08.2013
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Allahabad
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
Claim Petition No. 249 of 2010 awarding a
sum of Rs.15,72,848/- with interest at the
rate of 6% to the injured.

3. The accident having taken place is
not in dispute. The appellant having
suffered loss of income besides other
1 All. Bony Dubey Vs. M/S Shyam Bidi Works & Anr.
157
grievous injuries fracture in Spinal Cord
from several places and as such all body
parts below waist became senseless and he
is on wheelchair is not in dispute. The
vehicle being insured with insurance
company and there is no breach of policy
condition is not in dispute. The accident
occurred way back in the year 2010 is not
in dispute. The involvement of the vehicle
is not in dispute and it is proved before the
Tribunal that the driver was negligent.

4. The appellant challenges the
findings as they are perverse and against
the record and, therefore, factual data is not
adverted to except that the accident
occurred on 23.1.2010 at 12.30 when rashly
and negligently driven Vehicle No.UP 70 X
9756 hit the Motorcycle No.UP 70 AS
3148 coming from opposite direction as
such appellant (pillion rider on the
motorcycle) sustained grievous injuries
resulting in permanent disability to the
appellant. The appellant(minor) was about
15 years of age when the accident occurred
and he would be by now 25 years of age.
But unfortunately tribunal has considered
yearly income Rs.36,000/-, loss of income
Rs.5,40,000/-, Medical Bill & Vouchers
Rs.9,99,848/-, Rs.10,000/- for pain &
sufferings, Rs.15,000/- for Extra Diet &
Nourishment and total Award of Tribunal
Rs.15,72,848 with 6% rate of interest.

5. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant claimant that the
Tribunal
has
materially
erred
in
calculating
the
amount
of
claim.
According to the learned counsel for the
appellant Yearly income of the injured
Rs.60,000/- per annum; 40% addition
towards future prospect; multiplier of 15;
loss of earning capacity 100%; loss of
income 12,60,000/-; Rs.2,50,000/- for
addition towards permanent disability as
per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in paragraph 29 of the (2012) 12
SCC 274 K. Suresh V. New India
Assurance Company Ltd.; Rs.3,00,000/-
for addition towards Bleak prospect of
marriage life., as per the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Apex court in Paragraph
No.23 of the case reported (2014) 11
SCC 178 titled V. Mekala Vs. M.
Malathi & Another; Rs.15,00,000/- for
addition towards Pain & sufferings as per
the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Paragraph Nos. 26 & 27 of the
2020 (1) TAC 705 (SC) Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand & others; Rs.60,000/- per annum
for addition towards cost of attendants as
per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Paragraph No.22 to 25 of the
2020 (1) TAC 705 (SC) Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand
&
Others;
Rs.10,000/-
for
medical expenses; and total amount of
compensation Rs.52,10,000/- demanded
would just and proper and would be
adequate compensation..

6. Recently the Supreme Court had
an occasion of deciding a similar matter
relating to a minor who had become
practically crippled. The principles of just
compensation have been laid in the said
judgment.

7. Victim was 15 years of age who
has been rendered totally incapacitated. As
per the medical advice, he has suffered
90% disability for the body as a whole
which means it would be 100% disability
for earning, he has to move in a wheelchair and his chances of marriage have
become practically nil. The accident
occurred before a decade, namely, 2010.
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hence he would be at the age of 25 years as
of today.

8. We, therefore, would fall back
judgment on the Kajal (Supra) and in this
backdrop let us evaluate the income in view
of the decisions of the Apex Court titled
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Mukesh Kumar, 2021 (0) AJEL-SC
67851 and Jithendran v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC
67944
and,
the
recalculate
the
compensation which would be as follows:

i. Income Rs.5,000 x 12=60,000/-
p.a.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.24,000/-

iii.
Total
income
:
Rs.60,000+24,000 = Rs.84,000/-

iv. Multiplier applicable : 15

v. Loss of dependency: Rs.84,000
x 15 = Rs.12,60,000/-

vi. Bleak prospect of Marriage:
Rs.1,00,000/-

vii.
For pain
&
sufferings:
Rs.5,00,000/-

viii. Future medicine expenses =
Rs.5,00,000/-

ix. All other heads for wheelchair
= Rs.1,20,000/-

x.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.12,60,000 + Rs. 1,00,000 + 5,00,000 +
5,00,000 + Rs.1,20,000 =24,80,000/-

9. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under :

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

10. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

11. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed and oral counter claim is
allowed. Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount within a
period of 12 weeks from today with interest
at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the amount is
deposited. The amount already deposited
be deducted from the amount to be
deposited.

12. The lower court record be sent
back,
if
here,
to
the
tribunal
for
disbursement.
----------
(2022)01ILR A158
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3380 of 2003
with
First Appeal From Order No. 1319 of 2003