# Chandrabhan v. Naresh Kumar & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 72 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-03-03 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No.2288 of 2019 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrabhan-v-naresh-kumar-ors-45922 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) - Section 166 - Compensation - Claim for enhancement - Future Income - even for amputation, addition of future income has to be made (Para 6) B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) - Section 166 - Compensation - Interest - interest should be 9% (Para 12) Appeal partly allowed (E-5) List of cases cited:- ## Text 72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES contributory negligence vis-a-vis composite negligence would also not permit this Court to hold in favour of the appellant and take a different view then that taken by the tribunal. The tribunal has given enough cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that the accident was authored by the driver of the truck against whom, the charge sheet was laid the post mortem report shows that it was an instantaneous death due to accidental injuries tribunal considered the site plan and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. Hence I cannot take a different view then that taken by the tribunal. The submission that the tribunal erred in holding that truck was involved in accident cannot be accepted just because the number of the vehicle was not mentioned in F.I.R. As per the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Procedure Code, 1908 would also not permit this Court to hold otherwise the owner has accepted that it was negligence of the driver of the motorcycle which shows that he has accepted his vehicle namely truck being involved and the alternative submission that it was a case of contributory negligence cannot be accepted. Hence, both involvement and negligence of the driver of the truck were established and were rightly considered by the tribunal in light of the aforesaid decision. 23. As far as the non-joinder of the driver owner and insurance company of motorcycle, the tribunal has given cogent reasons and as it was a case of composite negligence, there was no necessity to implead the other vehicle involved in the accident. Necessity to implead the other vehicles was not there as truck driver has been held to be sole negligent. 24. This takes this Court to the question of compensation awarded. The deceased was a police personnel and his compensation of Rs.13,52,060/- cannot be said to be higherside. The Tribunal has added only Rs.9,500/- for the non pecuniary damages and has not awarded any amount under loss of future income. Even if no appeal is preferred this court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can grant just compensastion and additional amount of Rs.70,000/- for for non pecuniary damages as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105 would be just and proper. 25. The appeal stands dismissed. 26. Oral cross objection is allowed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 27. The additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till deposit. The amount be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today. 28. Records and proceedings be sent back to the Court below immediately. The amount be disbursed by the Tribunal without keeping in fixed deposit as 13 years have already lapsed. ---------- (2020)07ILR A72 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No.2288 of 2019 Chandrabhan ...Appellant Versus Naresh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents 7 All. Chandrabhan Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. 73 Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Sri Ram Singh Yadav, Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) - Section 166 - Compensation - Claim for enhancement - Future Income - even for amputation, addition of future income has to be made (Para 6) B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) - Section 166 - Compensation - Interest - interest should be 9% (Para 12) Appeal partly allowed (E-5) List of cases cited:- 1. Sanjay Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar & anr. (2014) 5 SCC 330 2. Syed. Sadiq & ors. Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 3. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr. (2014) 11 SCC 178 4. Hari Babu Vs Amrit Lal & ors. 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 All 5. Basudev Das Vs Pradymna Mohanty & anr. (2019) ACJ 3019 6. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & anr 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 7. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand (2020) 0 AIJEL-SC 65725 8. National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Birender & ors. C. A. No.242/243 of 2020 4 decided 13.01.2020 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushak Jayendra Thaker J.) 1. Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3- Sriram General Insurance 2. This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant challenges the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 389 of 2017 awarding a sum of Rs.4,48,218/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The injured appellant was 47 years of age at the time of accident. He was helper/cleaner on the bus and its averred that he was getting salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. He sustained 80% disability out of this accident. The Tribunal granted compensation considering the disability of 80% namely Rs.4,22,400/- for future loss. 5. I t is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has considered income of the injured-claimant to be Rs.4,000/- per year month which is unjust and should be at least Rs.14,000X12=1,68,000/- per year. It is submitted that amount under the head of future loss of income has not been granted by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of 74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the following authoritative pronouncements: (i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330; (ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735; (iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and (iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. (v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.). 6. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basudev Das Vs. Pradymna Mohanty & Another reported in 2019 ACJ 3019 wherein it is held that even for amputation, addition of future income has to be made and therefore in case of appellant also further loss will have to be added. 7. As against this, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court as the income which is not proved cannot be granted. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that his income can be considered to be Rs.6,000/- per month to which as the injured was 47 years at the time of accident, 25% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income of the injured in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed Sadiq and others (Supra) and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725. The loss of earning capacity namely 80% as considered by the Tribunal be maintained or the same may be reevaluated. 9. The amount granted by the Tribunal for medical expenses is also on lower side. Looking to the injuries caused to the appellantclaimant and in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725 this Court has held that he would be entitled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- . 10. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein below: i. Income : Rs.6,000/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs.1,500/- iii. Total income : Rs.6,000 + 1,500= Rs.7,500/- iv. Loss of earning capacity : 60% namely Rs.4,500/- v. Annual loss : Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/- vi. Multiplier applicable : 13. vii. Total loss : Rs.54,000 x 13 = Rs. 7,02,000/- viii. Medical expenses : Rs.25,000/- ix. Future medicine : Rs.25,000/- + Artificial limb of Rs.50,000/- = 75,000/- . 7 All. Sumitra Devi Vs. Special Judge/Addl. Distt. & Sess. Judge E.C. Act Hardoi & Ors. 75 x. Special diet : Rs.10,000/- xi. Attendant charges : Rs. 1,000/- xii. Amount under pain, shock and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/- xiii. Total compensation: Rs.7,02,000 + 25,000 + 75,000 + 10,000 + 1,000 + 1,00,000= 9,13,000/-. 11. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 12. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, I am in agreement with Sri Gour that the interest should be reviewed and. The interest should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 13. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% 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. 15. The records and proceedings be send back to Tribunal for disbursement ---------- (2020)07ILR A75 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.06.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RANJAN ROY, J. THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J. Misc. Single No. 9920 of 2018 Sumitra Devi ...Petitioner Versus Special Judge/Addl. Distt. & Sess. Judge E.C. Act Hardoi & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Amitabh Misra, Harish Chandra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Anurag Shukla A. Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C (3) - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Disputes) Rules, 1994 - Rule 4(1) - Election Petition - Presentation - As per Section 12-C (3) of the Act, 1947, an election petition has to be given or filed by any candidate at the election - It does not permit presentation of the Election Petition by the Advocate of the candidate or his clerk or any other agent or representative - Since, such a petition may lead to the vitiation of a democratic process, any procedure provided by an election statute must be read strictly. (Para 24 and 32) Held - 51. ... An Election Petition has, necessarily and mandatorily, to be presented by the candidate/election petitioner himself, if it is in his name, however, presentation of such a petition by his Advocate or clerk before the Prescribed Authority, in his presence, would be sufficient compliance of Section 12-C(3) of the Act, 1947. B. Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C (1) - 'May be' - Word 'may be'