# Brijendra Singh & Anr v. Sunil Rai & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 92
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 38 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijendra-singh-anr-v-sunil-rai-anr-47529
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 21 years old
and student of Final year M.A. and was
preparing for competitive examinationTribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,365/-
together with interest @ 7% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-Since, the deceased will fall
within the category of self-employed and
her age was 21 years at the time of
accident, 40% shall be added towards
future
prospects
as
per
Apex
Court
guidelines -By applying the multiplier of 18,
the total loss of dependency is assessed Rs.
16,07,000/-Thus, the claimants entitled for
increase of compensation a sum of Rs.
16,07,000/-from Rs 1,56,365/- 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

92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintainable.
Learned
counsel
placed
reliance on the following citations:-

(i) 1989 Law Suit (SC) 264 H.C.
Pandey Vs. G. C. Paul

(ii) 1979 ARC 242 Arya Kumar
Ghosh and others Vs. Iind Addl. District
Judge, Allahabad and others.

13. It is not disputed that Chiranji Lal
was the original tenant of the shop and
plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 to 4 are their
legal representatives. The disputed shop is
a commercial property, hence, after the
death of Chiranji Lal all of his legal
representatives will inherit the tenancy
rights as joint tenants. It also stands proved
from the evidence that only defendant no. 1
Ramesh Sen was professing vocation of
hair cutting with his father in the disputed
shop and after the death of Chiranji Lal he
was in exclusive possession. None of the
plaintiffs were in possession at any period
of time in the disputed shop. It is true that
surrender by one of the joint tenants will
not amount to surrender by remaining joint
tenants. A joint tenant can surrender only
his rights. But in the present case only one
of the joint tenants namely Ramesh Sen
(defendant no. 1) was in actual and
exclusive possession of the disputed shop.
During
pendency
of
the
case
he
surrendered tenancy rights in favour of
landlord and in pursuance thereof he also
handed over the possession of the entire
shop to the landlord who let it to the
appellant (defendant no. 5) Lakshman Das
Sindhi. It also stands proved from the
evidence that at present only appellant
Lakshman Das Sindhi is in possession of
the disputed shop as tenant. So in the
circumstances of the present case the rights
of other joint tenants plaintiffs and
defendant nos. 2 to 4 if any have become
extinguished. Implied surrender will be
presumed. The subject matter of the suit
was tenancy rights in the disputed shop
which is no more in-existence and the
tenanted shop is in exclusive possession of
the newly inducted tenant the appellant.
Hence, the suit has become infructuous and
now no decree for partition of tenancy
rights can be passed. The second question
is decided in the aforesaid terms.

14. From the above discussions it is
clear that subject matter of the present case
has become extinguished. There is no
tenancy rights of respondents in-existence,
hence, the suit has become infructuous and
is liable to be dismissed in the aforesaid
terms. The second appeal is liable to be
allowed.

15. The second appeal is allowed.
Judgment and decree dated 18.7.1988
passed by Civil Judge, Jhansi in Civil
Appeal No. 201 of 1985 Ganesh Prasad and
others Vs. Ramesh Singh and others is
hereby set-aside. The original suit no. 70 of
1976 (Ganesh Prasad and others Vs.
Ramesh Singh and others) stand dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.
----------

(2022)01ILR A92
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 38 of 2013

Brijendra Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sunil Rai & Anr. ...Respondents
1 All. Brijendra Singh & Anr. Vs. Sunil Rai & Anr.
93
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Autar Verma, Sri Devendra Kumar
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 21 years old
and student of Final year M.A. and was
preparing for competitive examinationTribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,365/-
together with interest @ 7% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-Since, the deceased will fall
within the category of self-employed and
her age was 21 years at the time of
accident, 40% shall be added towards
future
prospects
as
per
Apex
Court
guidelines -By applying the multiplier of 18,
the total loss of dependency is assessed Rs.
16,07,000/-Thus, the claimants entitled for
increase of compensation a sum of Rs.
16,07,000/-from Rs 1,56,365/- 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. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs D.T.C. & anr. (2009) 2
TAC 677 SC

2. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2014) 4 TAC 637 SC

3. Munna Lal Jain Vs Vipin Kumar Sharma
(2015) 3 TAC 1 SC

4. Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam Kishore Murmu &
anr.(2021) 4 TAC SC

5. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors.
(2019) 2 T.A.C. 705 SC

6. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Ins. Co. Ltd.(2007) 2 GLH 291
7. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
FAFO No . 23 of 2001

8. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Ins. Co. Ltd, FAFO No. 2871 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the
claimants have challenged the judgment
and order dated 4.10.2012, passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special
Judge (DAA), Jalaun at Orai (herein after
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MACP
No.150 of 2011 awarding a sum of
Rs.1,56,365/- as compensation to the
claimants with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum.

2. The claim petition was filed by the
appellants, parents of the deceased before the
Tribunal with the averments that on
14.4.2011 at about 12:30 in the afternoon,
deceased, namely Kumari Beena Yadav @
Kumari Rita Yadav was returning to her
home after studying in Kiran Career on
bicycle. When she reached at the crossing of
Zila
Parishad
Orai,
a
truck
bearing
No.MP09/HG-1398 came from opposite side,
which was being driven very rashly and
negligently by its driver. The aforesaid truck
hit the deceased. In this accident, the
deceased/injured sustained grievous injuries
and taken to the District Hospital from where
considering the serious condition of her, she
was referred to Jhansi Medical College. She
was hospitalized in a private hospital in
Mathura after Jhansi and subsequently, she
was admitted in Sufdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi, but during the course of treatment, she
died on 6.5.2011.

3. Heard Shri Ram Autar Verma,
learned counsel for the appellant. Though,
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice has been sent to the respondent,
none has appeared on behalf of respondentInsurance Company.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The
insurance company has not challenged the
liability on it. The issue of negligence has
attained finality. Now the only issue to be
decided is the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that deceased was unmarried
girl aged about 21 years. She was a final
year student of MA and preparing for
competitive examination such as B.Ed. and
Civil Services. It is also submitted that
Tribunal has assessed her notional income
at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the
lower side and no amount is awarded
towards loss of future income. It is next
submitted
that
towards
non-pecuniary
damages only Rs.5,000/- was awarded for
funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- was
awarded for loss of estate, which is also on
the lower side. It is further contended that
no amount towards proper filial consortium
is awarded.

6. The deceased was 21 years of age
as she was born on 9.1.1990. She was welleducated girl and having bright future. The
accident had taken place on 14.4.2011.
Hence, we fix her monthly income as
Rs.10,000/-
per
month,
namely
Rs.1,20,000/- per annum.

7. The Tribunal has not added any
percentage of amount towards future loss
of income, which is, in our opinion, grave
error. Since, the deceased will fall within
the category of self-employed and his age
was 20 years at the time of accident, 40%
shall be added towards future prospects as
held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi
[2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Hon'ble Apex
Court has also held in Munna Lal Jain vs.
Vipin Kumar Sharma [2015 (3) TAC 1
(SC)] that if the deceased was unmarried,
1/2 shall be deducted for his personal
expenses. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court
has also held that multiplier will be applied
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Therefore, keeping in view the age of the
deceased, multiplier of 18 will be applied
in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
[2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]. As far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- each
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses,
which are also on the lower-side. In the
light of Judgment in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra), claimants shall be entitled to
get Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and
funeral expenses. Rs.40,000/- x 2 =
Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium is
granted in the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs.
Shyam Kishore Murmu and another
[2021 (4) TAC (SC)] .

8. Hence, the total compensation, in
view of the above discussions, payable to
the appellants-claimants is being computed
herein below:

i
Annual Income
Rs.10,000/- x 12
Rs.1,20,00
0/-
ii
Percentage
towards
FutureProspects (40%)
Rs.1,20,000/-
x
40%
Rs.48,000/
-
iii
Total Income
Rs.1,20,000/-
+
Rs.48,000/-
Rs.1,68,00
0/-
iv
Income
after
deduction of 1/2
Rs.1,68,000/-
-
Rs.84,000/-
Rs.1,68,00
0/-
-
Rs.84,000/
-
1 All. Brijendra Singh & Anr. Vs. Sunil Rai & Anr.
95
v
Multiplier
applicable
18

vi
Loss
of
dependency
Rs.84,000/- x 18
Rs.15,12,0
00/-
vii
Funeral Expenses
Rs.15,000/
-
viii
Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- x 2
Rs.80,000/
-
ix
Total
Compensation
Rs.15,12,000/- +
Rs.15,000/-
+
Rs.80,000/-
Rs.16,07,0
00/-

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. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we
are fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in
the light of the above judgment.

11. In view of the above, the
appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal shall
stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
The Insurance Company shall deposit
the amount within a period of 8 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. In view of the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the
case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
[2007(2) GLH 291] and this High Court
in total amount of interest, accrued on
the principal amount of compensation is
to be apportioned on financial year to
financial year basis and if the interest
payable to claimant for any financial
year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance
company/owner is/are entitled to deduct
appropriate amount under the head of
'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided
u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal
is directed to allow the claimants to
withdraw the amount without producing
the certificate from the concerned
Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid
view has been reiterated by this High
Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23
of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs.
Hari Singh and another) and in First
Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016
(Tej
Kumari
Sharma
v.
Chola
Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.)
decided
on
19.3.2021
while
disbursing the amount.
----------
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)01ILR A96
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. 179 of 2011

Smt. Reena Agarwal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased
was
running
coaching center, he was earning Rs.
35000/- to 40,000/ per month-he left
behind
his
widow
and
four
minor
children-Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.
18,67,492/- together with interest @
6%
per
annum
as
compensationTribunal deducted 1/4th for personal
expenses and did not add ay amount
towards the future loss of income as he
was self employed person below the age
of 50 years-the annual income would be
Rs 2,30,000/--By applying the multiplier
of 14, the total loss of dependency is
assessed
Rs.
31,18,750/-Thus,
the
claimants
entitled
for
increase
of
compensation a sum of Rs. 31,18,750/-
from Rs. 18,67,492/- with a modified
rate
of
interest
@
7.5%
per
annum.(Paras 1 to 22)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.
Renu Singh & ors.,FAFO No.1818 of 2012

2. Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) 3 HL LR 330

3. Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Punj. (2005) 0 ACJ
SC 1840

4. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 0 Supreme SC 1050

5. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors.
(2019) 2 TAC 705 SC

6. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC 442

7. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Ins. Co. Ltd.(2007) 2 GLH 291

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

1. Heard Sri A. K. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants, learned counsel
for the respondents-for the Insurance
Company and none has appeared for the
owner and perused the judgment and order
impugned.

2. This appeal challenges the
compensation findings and negligence by
the Tribunal being Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Aligarh, (hereinafter
referred to as Tribunal) in M.A.C.P. No.
695 of 2008, awarding a sum of Rs.
18,67,492/- against the Uttar Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation,
(U.P.S.R.T.C.) with interest at the rate of
6% from date of application.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is not in dispute. The respondents have not
challenged the liability imposed on them.
The only issue to be decided is the
compensation awarded.