# Dinesh Kumar & Anr v. Prem Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 673
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-19
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 890 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-anr-v-prem-singh-ors-48573
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section . 168 - Motor Accident claim -
claimants' appeal claiming enhancement
for the death of child who was eight years
of age at the time of death - accident of
the year 1997- Held - appellants would be
entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,56,000 -
insurance company would be liable to pay
interest on the additional amount at 6%
from the date of filing of the appeal till the
delay is condoned and 3% thereafter
(Para 5, 6)
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Dinesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prem Singh & Ors.
673

16. Now coming to the facts of
this case, we find that the appeal before the
High Court did not involve any substantial
question of law on the material questions
set out above. In other words, in our view,
the Commissioner decided all the material
questions arising in the case properly on
the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties
and
rightly
determined
the
compensation payable to the respondent. It
was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High
Court on facts.

17. In this view of the matter, the
findings being concurrent findings of fact
of the two courts below are binding on this
Court. Even otherwise, we find no good
ground to call for any interference on any
of the factual findings. None of the factual
findings are found to be either perverse or
arbitrary or based on no evidence or
against
any
provision
of
law.
We
accordingly uphold these findings."

9. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O.
1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad)
decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the
decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has
held as follows:

"The grounds urged before this
Court are in the realm of finding of facts
and not a question of law. As far as
question of law is concerned, the aforesaid
judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc.
Versus Divisional Manager and another
(supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows
"the
Workman
Compensation
Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict
the scope of the appeal only to substantial
questions
of
law,
being
a
welfare
legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court
has missed this crucial question of limited
jurisdiction and has ventured to reappreciate the evidence and recorded its
own findings on percentage of disability for
which also there is no basis."

10. In view of the above, this appeal
sans merit and is dismissed. The amount
deposited, if any, would be remitted to the
family members with the interest accrued
till today.

11. This Court is thankful to Sri V.M.
Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, that he has
assisted this court even without his client
sending him any instructions.
----------
(2022)05ILR A673
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 890 of 2022

Dinesh Kumar & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Prem Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section . 168 - Motor Accident claim -
claimants' appeal claiming enhancement
for the death of child who was eight years
of age at the time of death - accident of
the year 1997- Held - appellants would be
entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,56,000 -
insurance company would be liable to pay
interest on the additional amount at 6%
from the date of filing of the appeal till the
delay is condoned and 3% thereafter
(Para 5, 6)
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kishan Gopal & anr. Vs Lala & ors., 2013
(101) ALR 281 (SC) 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014
(1) AICC 208 (SC)

2. Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 2005
AICC 208 (SC)

3. United India Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs
Mumtaz Ahmad & anr., 2017 (2) AICC 1229

4. Kurvan Ansari Kurvan Ali Vs Shyam Kishore
Murmu, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67995

5. U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Vs Triloki
Chand, 1996 ACJ Page 31

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

1. Heard Shri Ram Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil
Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the
respondents 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 appellants being aggrieved
by order dated 25.5.2002 passed by the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.5, Fatehpur in M.A.C.P. No.173 of
1997 awarding sum of Rs.71,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9%.

3. This is a claimants' appeal claiming
enhancement for the death of child who
was eight years of age at the time of death.
Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that in the year 1997, normally
the amount awardable to the child would be
at least Rs.1,56,000/- and has relied on the
decisions of this Court and Apex Court in
Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and
others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013
(131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC)
and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC
609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this
Court in its recent decision of this Court in
United
India
Insurance
Company
Limited.
Vs.
Mumtaz
Ahmad
and
Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein
this Court held as follows:

"6. Sri Ram Singh has heavily
relied on the decision in the case of Kishan
Gopal and another v. Lala and others,
2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131)
AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and
Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 =
2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without
saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex
Court since Manju Devi's judgment has
been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children
below the age of 15 years. I think that is
just and proper and hence, the amount
requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000
to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from
the owner. The appeal is partly allowed.
The cross-objection is also partly allowed."

4. As against this, learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that the
amount awarded is just and proper as the
accident is of the year 1997.

5. The recent judgment of the Apex
Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali
Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 (0)
AIJEL-SC 67995 will also have to be
looked
into.
The
concept
of
just
compensation has been lost site of by the
Tribunal. The decision which would hold
the feel would not be the judgment of
Kisan Gopal (Supra) and Kurvan Ansari
Alias Kurvan Ali but would be the
judgment of Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1)
TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) which
5 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corp., Ghaziabad & Anr.
675
has relied on the judgment of Apex Court
in
U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation Vs. Triloki Chand, 1996
ACJ Page 31. The recent decision in
Manju Devi (Supra) will enure for the
benefit of the appellant. The appellants
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,56,000/-.

6. Interest granted by the Tribunal is
modified. This appeal remain has defective
appeal since 2004 and delay was condoned
in the year 2022 and the matter is taken up
for
final
disposal,
Hence,
insurance
company would be liable to pay interest on
the additional amount at 6% from the date
of filing of the appeal till the delay is
condoned and 3% thereafter. The amount
already deposited, be deducted.

7. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. The additional amount be
recalculated with interest as directed above
and deposited within 8 weeks from today.
The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent.

8. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels for ably assisting this Court in
getting this appeal disposed off.
----------
(2022)05ILR A675
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 926 of 2011

Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corp.,
Ghaziabad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri V.B. Keshwarwani, Sri Dharmendra
Kumar Gupta, Smt. Kiran Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Misra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
accident took place in the year 2010 -
deceased was 27 years of age bachelor
and was Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police
-
Tribunal
not
granted
any
amount
towards
future
loss
of
income
&
considered the multiplier of 13 as per the
age of the parents - Held - Tribunal was
suppose to grant future loss of income as
the
deceased
was
in
employment
-
multiplier would be as per the age of the
deceased and not that of the parents -
appellants are also entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/-
each
towards
filial
consortium
and
Rs.15,000/-
towards
funeral expenses - rate of interest is
should be 7.5% (Para 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp.
& anr., 2009 LawSuit (SC)

2. Ramesh Singh & anr. Vs Satbir Singh & anr.,
2008 (2) SCC 667

3. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr., 2021 (4) TAC 673 (SC)

4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

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

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