# Dinesh Babu v. Manager, M/s Kandia Transport Co., Jamshedpur & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1385
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 200 of 1996
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-babu-v-manager-m-s-kandia-transport-co-jamshedpur-anr-50185
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim-Accident
and negligence not in dispute-nor liability is
challenged-quantum disputed-injured was 15
years old student-Tribunal considered his income
to be Nil-income with potential to earn be
Rs.1500/- per month-50% of income towards
disability-medical expene and amount under
pain, shock and sufferings is granted-Rate of
interest-7.5%.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Dinesh Babu Vs. Manager, M/s Kandia Transport Co., Jamshedpur & Anr.
1385
Sub Rule (2) of the U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021, therefore, no action can be taken. As
the two base cases shown against the
petitioner in the impugned gang chart are
under Sections 379, 380 and 411 IPC,
therefore, no action can be taken against
him under the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

10. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances we, hereby direct
the Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir
Nagar to ensure that the name of the
petitioner be deleted from the gang chart
and the petitioner be not prosecuted in
pursuance of the impugned FIR dated
30.07.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No.
244 of 2022 under Section 3(1) of the UP
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationMaholi, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.

11. The writ petition is allowed only
in respect to the petitioner. However, the
investigation as against the co-accused
shall proceed in accordance with law.

12. Let the copy of this order be
provided to the learned AGA for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1385
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2023
BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 200 of 1996

Dinesh Babu ...Applicant
Versus
Manager,
M/s
Kandia
Transport
Co.,
Jamshedpur & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri B.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.A. Khan

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim-Accident
and negligence not in dispute-nor liability is
challenged-quantum disputed-injured was 15
years old student-Tribunal considered his income
to be Nil-income with potential to earn be
Rs.1500/- per month-50% of income towards
disability-medical expene and amount under
pain, shock and sufferings is granted-Rate of
interest-7.5%.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

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 Limited,
(2014) 2 SCC 735;

3. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr., (2014) 11 SCC
178;

4. Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh
Amendment) Rules, 2011.

5. Hari Babu Vs Amrit Lal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C.
718 (All.).

6. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0)
AIJEL-SC 65725

7. A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442

8. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2)
GLH 291

9. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001-Smt. Sudesna
& ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.

10. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors.
1386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.R.Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr A.A.
Khan, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimant, challenges the judgment and
order
dated
18.11.1995
passed
by
M.A.C.T/4th-Additional
District
Judge,
Mainpuri
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 1993
awarding a sum of Rs. 57,000/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of
12%.

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. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 15.09.1992, petitioner
Dinesh Babu alongwith his brother Surya
Prakash was going on a cycle on his left
side of the road from his school Devnagari
Inter College Kuraoli to his village
Nanamau, as soon as at about 12:20 p.m he
reached
near
Gailanath
bridge
on
G.T.Road, a new chasis No. B.R. X-9252
came from Bhagaon side rashly and
negligently ad without any alarm collided
with the petitioner and his brother were
seriously injured and their cycle was
damaged. The petitioner and his younger
brother Surya Prakash were driving cycle
on correct side of the road.

5. The injured was 15 year old
student. The tribunal has considered his
income to be Nil, granted Rs. 15,000/-
towards loss of medical expenses, granted
Rs. 2000/- towards attendant charges for
past and future and Rs. 40,000/- towards
pain, shock and sufferings and ultimately
assessed the total compensation to be Rs.
57,000/-.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that no amount under the
head loss of income has been granted by
the Tribunal which is unjust and should be
at least Rs.2,000/- per month. It is
submitted that no amount is granted under
the head of monthly loss to injured which is
also unjust and should be at least 50%. It is
submitted that no amount under the head of
future loss of income has been granted. 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 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.).

(vi) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand
reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725

7. Can additional interest be granted,
the answer is no. The claimant is claiming
5 All. Dinesh Babu Vs. Manager, M/s Kandia Transport Co., Jamshedpur & Anr.
1387
that his income was Rs. 25000/- p.a. There
is 100% loss of injury. The tribunal has not
considered what is the loss of earning
capacity but 30 years have elapsed since 15
year old student become crippled.

8. As against this, it is submitted by
Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the
respondent that even in the year 1992
the
notional
income
can
be
Rs.
18,000/-p.m. and not more, there is no
100% loss of income, the multiplier of
15 is just and proper and could be
granted even if this Court feels that the
claimant is entitled to the enhanced
amount.

9. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and perusing the judgment and
order impugned, as he was a student, this
Court feels that income with potential to
earn can be considered to be Rs.1500/- per
month. To which as the injured was 15
years at the time of accident, 50% of the
income towards disability. Further, a lum
sum of Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses.
As far as the amount under pain, shock and
sufferings is concerned, Rs.50,000/- is
granted.

10. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellant is computed herein
below:

i. Income : Rs.1500/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.600/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 1500 + 600
= Rs. 2100/-

iv. Loss of earning capacity : 50%
namely Rs. 1000/- (rounded up)

v. Annual loss : Rs. 1000 x 12 =
Rs. 12000/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 15

vii. Total loss : Rs. 12000 x 15 =
Rs. 1,80,000/-

viii. Medical expenses : Rs.
50,000/-

ix. Amount under pain, shock and
suffering : Rs.50,000/-

xiii.
Total
compensation
:
2,80,000/-

11. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till date.

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

13. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Award 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 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.

14. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
1388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers.

15. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, 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 claimant 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)
while disbursing the amount.

16.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunals in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and judgment of A.V. Padma
(supra). The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.

17. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As
long period has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

18. Record be sent back to tribunal
forthwith.

19. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1388
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2023
BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1054 of 1995

Yogendra Nath Upadhyaya & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
Sailesh Kr. Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri A.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kameshwar Singh,Sri Amaresh Sinha,
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act- Sections
166 & 140-Accident due to joint negligence of
jeep and tractor drivers-deceased was 60 yearswas agriculturist -earning Rs. 2000/- p.m.-
tribunal considered the income to be Nil-Tribunal
held claimant entitled to amount on only no
fault liability basis-wrong-amount u/s 140 is
under no fault liability and is independent of
sec.166-case of composite negligence-deceased
was not tort feasor -both drivers negligentamount be apportioned between the two tort