# Jiaul Hasan & Ors v. Vijendra Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 166
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 430 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jiaul-hasan-ors-v-vijendra-singh-anr-45926
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law-Motor
Accident
Claim-
Deduction towards personal and living expenses
- Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, 50% deduction is to
be made towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased - Held, Tribunal wrongly
9 All. Jiaul Hasan & Ors. Vs. Vijendra Singh & Anr.
167
deducted one-third towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. (Para 12 and 13)
B.Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Application of Multiplier - Sarla Verma's principle
- Age of deceased was 20 years - A multiplier
of 18 ought to have been applied - Held,
Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 16.
(Para 16)
C. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination
of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
The
issue
regarding
future
prospects has now been settled in the case of
Pranay Sethi - Tribunal has erred in not
awarding any amount towards future prospects
- The appellant nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled
to an addition of 40% of the income of the
deceased towards future prospects. (Para 17
and 19)
D. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination of Compensation - Funeral
expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate
- Pranay Sethi's Principle - As a rule of thumb
Rs. 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 has to be
awarded towards loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses respectively -
Claimant
is
entitled
for
the
same
-
Compensation is accordingly increased. (Para
20, 21 and 23)
Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
containing the sample will also have a
reference of the test memo. The seals
should be legible. This envelope along with
test memos should be kept in another
envelope which should also be sealed and
marked "secret-Drug sample/Test memo" to
be
sent
to
the
concerned
chemical
laboratory."

5. Learned AGA for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but
could not argue the aforesaid fact.

6. Having considered the material on
record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and the dictum of
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, let
the applicant involved in the aforesaid
crime be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court
concerned
with
the
following
conditions that :-

1. The applicant shall not tamper
with
the
prosecution
evidence
by
intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses,
during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

3. The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.

4. In case the applicant has been
enlarged on short term bail as per the order
of committee constituted under the orders
of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be
effective after the period of short-term bail
comes to an end.

5. The applicant shall be enlarged
on bail on execution of personal bond
without sureties till normal functioning of
the courts is restored. The accused will
furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the
court below within a month after normal
functioning of the courts are restored.

6. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

7.
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.

7. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
----------
(2020)09ILR A166
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 430 of 2016

Jiaul Hasan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Vijendra Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Balendu Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, Kunwar Ravi
Prakash, Tarun Kumar Misra

A.
Civil
Law-Motor
Accident
Claim-
Deduction towards personal and living expenses
- Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, 50% deduction is to
be made towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased - Held, Tribunal wrongly
9 All. Jiaul Hasan & Ors. Vs. Vijendra Singh & Anr.
167
deducted one-third towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. (Para 12 and 13)
B.Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Application of Multiplier - Sarla Verma's principle
- Age of deceased was 20 years - A multiplier
of 18 ought to have been applied - Held,
Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 16.
(Para 16)
C. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination
of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
The
issue
regarding
future
prospects has now been settled in the case of
Pranay Sethi - Tribunal has erred in not
awarding any amount towards future prospects
- The appellant nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled
to an addition of 40% of the income of the
deceased towards future prospects. (Para 17
and 19)
D. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination of Compensation - Funeral
expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate
- Pranay Sethi's Principle - As a rule of thumb
Rs. 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 has to be
awarded towards loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses respectively -
Claimant
is
entitled
for
the
same
-
Compensation is accordingly increased. (Para
20, 21 and 23)
Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
3. Hem Raj Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2018) 15 SCC 654

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Balendu Shekhar,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri
Tarun Kumar Misra, learned counsel for
respondent no.2. No one has appeared on
behalf of respondent no.1

2. This is a claimant's appeal for
enhancement of compensation against the
judgment and award dated 15.3.2016
passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.14, Lucknow in Motor Accident Claims
Case No.186 of 2014 (Jia-Ul-Hasan and
others v. Vijendra and others).

3. The deceased, Dawood Hasan, was
the son of claimants-appellant nos.1 and 2 and
brother of claimants-appellant nos.3 and 4
herein. On 20.3.2014, at about 7:30 PM, a
truck bearing registration no. HR 74-2918,
which was being driven rashly and negligently
dashed against a car bearing registration No.
UP 32 EL 2099. The accident took place near
Prashant Dhaba at Kanpur Lucknow Highway
under Police Station Sarojini Nagar. As a result
of the said accident both Dawood Hasan and
Vishal Shobhit, who were travelling in the said
car suffered grievous injuries and died on the
spot.

4. Jiaul Hasan and Nargis Bano (the
parents of Dawood Hasan) along with
Farheen and Malak Hasan (sisters of
Dawood Hasan) filed a claim petition under
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the
Act)
claiming
compensation
of
Rs
7,50,000. The appellants pleaded that the
accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the truck and that, at
the time of his death the deceased was 20
years of age and was doing his second year
B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering from
Azad Engineering College, L.I.T., Bijnor
and was earning a sum of Rs 3300 per
month from tutions.

5. The claim was contested by
Vijendra, respondent no.1 herein, the owner
of the offending truck. It was stated that
Iqbal, the driver of the truck was a skilled
driver and had a valid and effective driving
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
license on the date of the alleged accident.
The factum of accident was denied and it
was additionally mentioned that the truck
was insured with Chola Mandalam M.S.
General Insurance Company, respondent
no.2 herein and that there being no breach
of the terms and conditions of the policy,
the compensation, if any, was to be paid by
respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2, the
insurer also contested the claim by filing
their written statement.

6. On the pleading of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following issues:

1& D;k fnukad 20-03-2014 dks le;
djhc 7-30 cts 'kke LFkku iz'kkUr

3& D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; Vad la[;k
,p0vkj0 74&2918 ds pkyd ds ikl oS| ,oa
izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh\

4& D;k izLrqr ;kfpdk i{kdkjksa ds
vla;kstu ds nks"k ls nwf"kr gS tSlk fd foi{kh la0
2 dk vius izfrokni= ds izLrj 21 esa vfHkdFku
gSs\

5& D;k ;kph izfrdj dh /kujkf'k ikus
ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gk¡ rks fdruh vkSj fdlls\

7. On behalf of the appellants, Jiaul
Hasan was examined as PW 1 and Janardan
Agarwal was examined as PW 2. No oral
evidence was led by the respondents. The
parties filed documentary evidence in
support of their respective cases.

8. After analysing the evidence on
record the Tribunal held that the accident
was caused due to negligent and rash
driving of offending truck. The Tribunal
also held that the appellants nos. 3 and 4
(the sisters of the deceased) were not
dependent upon him. While deciding the
quantum of compensation the Tribunal, in
the absence of any documentary evidence,
took the notional income of the deceased at
Rs 3000 per month. It also determined that
the deceased was a bachelor and was aged
about 20 years at the time of accident. The
Tribunal deducted one-third of the monthly
income towards his personal and living
expenses and determined that the effective
loss of earnings to the family was Rs 2000
per month (or Rs 24,000 per annum). The
Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16
for determining the compensation amount.
The Tribunal also provided compensation
of Rs 5000 towards funeral expenses and
declared that the appellant nos. 1 and 2
were entitled to the compensation of Rs
3,89,000 along with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of actual payment.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that as per the age of the
deceased, the Tribunal ought to have
applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 16.
He has further submitted that the claimants
were also entitled to compensation under
the head of future prospect and were also
entitled to the compensation under the
conventional head.

10. Shri Tarun Kumar Misra, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 has supported
the impugned award. He has, however,
submitted that since the deceased was a
bachelor and only the parents of the
deceased have been held to be his
dependents, one-half should have been
deducted towards his personal and living
expenses instead of one third.

11. Admittedly, against the award
under challenge in the present appeal,
neither any appeal nor any cross objection
has been filed on behalf of the respondents
and as such the finding regarding the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle is upheld. The appellants
have not assailed the finding recorded by
9 All. Jiaul Hasan & Ors. Vs. Vijendra Singh & Anr.
169
the Tribunal that the appellant nos. 3 and 4,
the sisters of the deceased, were not
dependant on him and as such the same is
also upheld.

12. On the issue of deduction towards
personal and living expenses, it is no more
res integra that where the deceased was a
bachelor and the claimants are the parents,
50% deduction is to be made towards
personal and living expenses of the
deceased.

13. The Tribunal has made a
deduction of one-third towards the personal
and living expenses of the deceased and as
rightly contended by the learned counsel
for the insurer, the deceased being a
bachelor and only his parents having being
held to be dependent upon him, the
deduction of one-half should have been
made towards his personal and living
expenses as per the settled law in this
regard. The issued is decided accordingly.

14. In so far as the multiplier is
concerned, the Apex Court in Sarla Verma
and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and others, (2009) 5 SCC 121 has held that
the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the table set out
in paragraph 40 of the said judgment which
starts with the multiplier of 18. Paragraph
42 of the said report is extracted below:

"42. We therefore hold that the
multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma
Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),
which starts with an operative multiplier of
18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to
25 years), reduced by one unit for every
five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years,
M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40
years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13
for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two
units for every five years, that is, M-11 for
51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7
for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70
years."

15. In National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)
16 SCC 680, a Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court, reproduced paragraph 42 of
Sarla Verma's case and approved the same
by stating thus:

"42. As far as the multiplier is
concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the
courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds
place in para 19 of Sarla Verma read with
para 42 of the said judgment."

16. As the age of the deceased at the
time of his death was 20 years, as per Sarla
Verma's case, a multiplier of 18 ought to
have been applied. The Tribunal, taking
into consideration the age of the deceased,
wrongly applied the multiplier of 16. The
issue is decided accordingly.

17. The next question relates to the
addition of future prospects. The Tribunal,
in the present matter, has not awarded any
amount towards future prospects. The issue
regarding future prospects has now been
settled in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
The relevant portion of the said report is
being
reproduced
below
for
ready
reference:

"56. .... We are inclined to think
that there can be some degree of difference
as regards the percentage that is meant for
or applied to in respect of the legal
representatives who claim on behalf of the
deceased who had a permanent job than a
person who is self employed or on a fixed
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
salary. But not to apply the principle of
standardisation on the foundation of
perceived
lack
of
certainty
would
tantamount to remaining oblivious to the
marrows of ground reality. And, therefore,
degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree
test is applied and left to the parties to
adduce evidence to establish, it would be
unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has
to have the inbuilt concept of percentage.
Taking into consideration the cumulative
factors, namely, passage of time, the
changing society, escalation of price, the
change in price index, the human attitude
to follow a particular pattern of life, etc.,
an addition of 40% of the established
income of the deceased towards future
prospects and where the deceased was
below 40 years an addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to
50 years would be reasonable."
 (emphasis supplied)

18. In Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 654, the Apex Court
repelled the submission made on behalf of the
Insurance Company that in the absence of
actual evidence of income the principle of
adding on account of future prospects cannot
be applied where income is determined by
guesswork and held that there cannot be
distinction where there is positive evidence of
income and where minimum income is
determined on guesswork in the facts and
circumstances of a case.

19. In view of the above, the Tribunal
has erred in not awarding any amount
towards future prospects. The appellant
nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to an
addition of 40% of the income of the
deceased towards future prospects.

20. In Pranay Sethi (supra) the Apex
Court has held that as a rule of thumb Rs.
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 has to be
awarded towards loss of estate, loss of
consortium
and
funeral
expenses
respectively.

21. In view of the above, the
compensation awarded under the head
funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs.
5,000/- to Rs.15,000. The appellant nos. 1
and 2 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.
15,000 towards loss of estate and Rs
40,000/- towards loss of consortium on the
death of their son.

22. Thus, in the light of the above
mentioned principles, notional income of
the deceased is assessed as Rs 3000/- per
month (or Rs 36,000/- per annum).
Considering the principles of dependence,
half of the income of the deceased is liable
to be deducted towards the amount, which
he would have spent upon himself, if he
had remained alive. After deducting half
from his annual income towards his
personal
and
living
expenses,
his
contribution to the family is assessed as Rs
18,000/- per annum. Since the age of the
deceased was less than 40 years, an
addition of 40% of the annual income
should be made on account of future
prospects on the basis of Pranay Sethi
(supra). The annual income of the deceased
would thus be Rs.25,200/-. Considering the
age of the deceased, a multiplier of 18 is to
be applied. Accordingly, the loss of
dependency is assessed as Rs. 4,53,600/-.
In addition to the above, the claimants are
also entitled to Rs 15,000/- towards funeral
expenses, Rs 15,000/- for loss of estate and
Rs 40,000- towards consortium.

23. Thus the total compensation to
which the claimants are entitled is Rs
5,23,600/- The compensation is accordingly
increased from Rs 3,89,000/- to Rs
9 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors.
171
5,23,600/-. The increased amount shall
carry interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the time of its
actual payment.

24. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the above extent.
----------
(2020)09ILR A171
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 890 of 2017

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Saroj & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vashu Deo Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Bhanu
Singh, Hari Shanker Tewari, Mukesh Singh

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 103 - U.P. State Road Transport
Services (Development) Rules, 1974 - Permit
issued to State Transport Undertaking -
Requirement of mentioning the bus numbers -
Held, There is no statutory requirement of
mentioning the bus number in a permit issued
to the State Transport Undertaking. (Para 14)

B. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Doctrine of estoppels - Plea of violation of
insurance policy - Not raised before the court
below - Held, appellant is now estopped from
contending that by attaching his bus with the
Corporation, the insured has violated the terms
and conditions of the policy and it was not liable
to indemnify the insured. (Para 22, 23 and 24)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1.
The
Oriental
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
Vs
U.P.S.R.T.C. & ors., 2015 (33) LCD 2814
2. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Kulsum; (2011) 8 SCC 142
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. This first appeal from order has
been filed by the Insurer under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short
'the Act') against the judgment and award
dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/ Additional
District Judge, Court No. 2, Faizabad in
MACP No. 252 of 2015, Smt. Saroj and
others v. Laxman Prasad Verma and others.

2. On 03.08.2015, Vinod Kumar was
returning to his village Doshpur from
Faizabad on his bicycle. At about 9 pm, a
bus bearing No. UP-36T-1103, which was
being driven rashly and negligently, came
from behind and hit his bicycle. As a result
of the said collision Vinod Kumar suffered
serious injuries in his head and body. He
was taken to District Hospital, Faizabad
from where he was referred to Trauma
Centre, Lucknow. On 05.08.2015, he died
while undergoing treatment at Lucknow. A
First Information Report was lodged at
police station Pura Kalandar, District
Faizabad. Smt. Saroj, widow of late Vinod
Kumar, along with her daughters Ruchi
Verma and Kamimi Verma and son Anuj,
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.
16,35,000/- for the unfortunate death of
Vinod Kumar in the road accident.

3. Laxman Prasad Verma, the owner
of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.
5 herein, in his written statement admitted
that he was the registered owner of the
offending bus. However, he denied the
accident and the involvement of the bus in