# Jiuti Devi & Ors v. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 895
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2705 of 2015
- **Bench:** J.J.Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jiuti-devi-ors-v-manoj-kumar-rai-ors-48257
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Seeking enhancement- Tribunal held a multiplier
of 'Five' would apply - first to be encountered is
the age of the deceased - Rs.40,000/- towards
spousal consortium shall be set apart and paid
exclusively to Smt. Jiuti Devi - 70% whereas the
balance 30% shall be divided equally amongst
claimant-appellant
nos.
2,
3
and
4
-
compensation to be distributed amongst the
claimant-appellants.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 64,395. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
895
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.

16. 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.
----------
(2022)03ILR A895
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2705 of 2015
Jiuti Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, Sri Hemant
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri Pawan Kumar
Mishra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Seeking enhancement- Tribunal held a multiplier
of 'Five' would apply - first to be encountered is
the age of the deceased - Rs.40,000/- towards
spousal consortium shall be set apart and paid
exclusively to Smt. Jiuti Devi - 70% whereas the
balance 30% shall be divided equally amongst
claimant-appellant
nos.
2,
3
and
4
-
compensation to be distributed amongst the
claimant-appellants.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramachandrappa Vs Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236

2. Sarla Verma (Smt) & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & ors.
2020 SCC OnLine SC 410

5. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum
Vs Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176

6. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362

7. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Charlie,
(2005) 10 SCC 720

8. Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan, (2013) 9
SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 826
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Puttamma Vs K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15
SCC 45 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 384 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 574

10. Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817
: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149

11. Santosh Devi Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S)
167

12. Jagmala Ram Vs Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC
OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368

13. Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana Vs
Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 :
(2014) 3 UC 1687

14. Lakshman Vs Susheela Chand Choudhary,
1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570

15. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (To be
represented by Senior Divisional Manager) Vs
Pratibha Das & ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 226
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an Appeal by the claimants,
seeking enhancement of the award made by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
District Judge, Ballia in M.A.C.P. No.21 of
2015.

2.

The
appellants,
who
shall
hereinafter be referred to as 'the claimants',
are the widow and the three sons of the late
Hira Lal, who died in a motor accident on
24.01.2015. The Tribunal has thought that
looking to the age of Hira Lal and his
station in life, that serve as the index of his
income, the claimants are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.1 lakh alone. The
claimants feel that the compensation
awarded is atrociously low and have,
therefore, appealed the Tribunal's award
through the present Appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881.

3. The facts giving rise to the Appeal,
in some detail, are these:

On 24.01.2015, Hira Lal had left
home for some kind of a pathological test
along with a relative. He was buying at the
greengrocer's, who had put up shop by the
roadside at Nagra Road, Ballia. A truck,
bearing registration No. UP-61J-7671,
driven rashly and negligently by Yogendra
Kushwaha,
respondent
no.3,
was
proceeding from Belthra towards Rasra.
The greengrocer's shop was located on the
western pavement of the road, where the
deceased and his relative were buying
vegetables. The rashly driven truck hit the
deceased. In consequence of the injuries
sustained, Hira Lal died on the spot. Hira
Lal is survived by the claimants, where
Jiuti Devi is his widow, whereas Laxmikant
Chauhan, Jagdish Chauhan and Ramesh are
his sons. The sons are all adults. The
deceased was self-employed as a casual
labourer, and according to the claimants, he
earned a sum of Rs.250/- per day, which
would work out to a figure of Rs.7500/- per
month. The claimants say that they have
lost their dependency to the extent of the
income that the deceased contributed to the
household.
The
claimants,
therefore,
petitioned the Tribunal under Section 166
of the Act, seeking compensation in the
sum of Rs.15 lakhs.

4. Manoj Kumar, respondent no.1, is
the owner of the offending vehicle, that
was driven by Yogendra Kushwaha. Manoj
Kumar Rai is respondent no.1 to this
Appeal. The Chola MS General Insurance
Company Limited, Marie Gold Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow are the insurers of the
offending vehicle and they have been
impleaded to this appeal, like the claim
petition, through the Manager of the
Insurance Company as respondent no.2.
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
897
The Manager, Chola MS General Insurance
Company Limited, Marie Gold Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow, respondent no.2 to
this Appeal, shall hereinafter be referred to
as 'the insurers'. Manoj Kumar Rai,
respondent no.1, shall hereinafter be
referred to as the owner, whereas Yogendra
Kushwaha shall be called 'the driver'.

5. The owner and the insurers filed
their separate written statements, denying
the factum of involvement of the offending
truck in the accident.

6. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of
parties, framed the following issues:

"1- Whether on 24-01-2015 at
about 01.00, P.M. in Nagra market, P.S.
Nagra, District Ballia, an accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. UP61 J-7671, in which, Hira Lal Chauhan
sustained injuries and died? If so, its effect?

2- Whether the driver of the
offending vehicle No. UP-61 J-7671 was not
having a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of accident? If so, its effect?

3- Whether the aforesaid vehicle
bearing Registration No. UP-61 J-7671 was
not validly and effectively insured with
opposite party No. 2, Chola Mandalam M/S
General Insurance Co. Ltd.? If so, its
effect?

4- Whether the aforesaid vehicle
was not being plied under the terms and
conditions of insurance policy? If so, its
effect?

5.
To
what
amount
of
compensation, are the petitioners entitled?
And from whom?"

7. Issue Nos.1 to 4 have been
answered in favour of the claimants and
against the respondents. There is no dispute
about these issues in the present Appeal,
that is confined to the quantum of
compensation, subject matter of Issue No.5.

8. The Tribunal allowed the claim in
part, granting a total compensation of Rs.1
lakh with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, payable from the date of institution
of the petition until realization.

9. Aggrieved, the claimants have
appealed the Tribunal's award, seeking
enhancement of the compensation to the
figure claimed, that is, Rs.15 lakhs.

10. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar,
Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Ojha,
learned Counsel for the claimants and Mr.
Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding
brief of Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, learned
Counsel for the insurers. The impugned
award and the record have been perused.

11. A perusal of the impugned award
shows that the Tribunal has taken note of
the fact that the deceased's age, pleaded by
the claimants, is 55 years and coalesces
with the opinion of the autopsy Doctor. The
Tribunal has then taken into consideration
the evidence of Jiuti Devi in her crossexamination on 20.05.2015, where she has
said that her elder son, Laxmikant is aged
about 40 years. The Tribunal has accepted
the age of the deceased's elder son as 40
years and, on the basis of that fact, has
opined that it is impossible that a son
would have been born to the deceased at
the age of 15 years. It has been remarked
that it appears that in order to maximize
compensation, the deceased's age has been
understated. It is also concluded by the
Tribunal that the circumstances show that
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
at the time of death, the deceased was aged
60 years or more. It has then been opined
that going by that age, it is difficult to
accept that the deceased's income can be
anything more than Rs.3000/- per month. It
has been concluded that bearing in mind
the deceased's age, it would be just to
assess his income at a figure of Rs.75/- per
day. The monthly income has, therefore,
been assessed at a figure of Rs. 2,250/- and
the annual income a sum of Rs.27,000/-.
Making allowance for a deduction of 1/3rd
on personal expenditure, the Tribunal has
held that the claimants' annual dependency
is Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal has also
opined that the three sons being adults, the
sole dependent is the widow.

12.

Based
on
the
aforesaid
parameters, the Tribunal has resorted to the
Second Schedule, appended to the Act
framed under Section 163-A, and on the
basis of that Schedule, held that the
deceased being in the age bracket of 60-65
years, a multiplier of 'Five' would apply.
Applying the multiplier of 'Five' to the
annual dependency of Rs.18,000/-, a
substantive compensation of Rs.90,000/-
has been determined. In addition, Rs.5000/-
has been awarded towards funeral expenses
and Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium.
Thus,
adding
to
the
substantive
compensation of Rs.90,000/-, a sum of
Rs.10,000/-
awarded
under
the
nonpecuniary heads, a total compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the
Tribunal, that would carry an annual
interest of 6% from the date of presentation
of the claim petition.

13.

Criticizing
the
aforesaid
quantification
of
compensation,
Mr.
Hemant Kumar submits that the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded for the accidental
death of an adult and a productive person is
too inadequate. He submits that going by
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.2,
some amount of guesswork is involved to
assess the daily income of a casual
labourer, which has to be done by resort to
ground realities of wages at the relevant
point of time. It is submitted that their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa opined that a coolie or
a casual labourer must be held to earn a
wage of Rs.100 - 150/- per day or
Rs.4500/- per month. It is pointed out that
the accident involved in Ramachandrappa
related to the year 2004 and going by the
ground realities prevalent at that time, it
was opined that the daily-wage earned by a
casual labourer was Rs.100 - 150/- per day.
Here, the accident is one that occurred in
the year 2015. It is urged that the rise in
price index and in daily wages cannot,
therefore, be ignored. He submits that a
wage of Rs. 250/- per day is a modest
assessment, based on a truthful account of
what the deceased was earning at the time
of the fateful accident. To assess the
deceased's income at Rs. 75/- per day, it is
submitted by Mr. Hemant Kumar, is
perverse.

14. It is also argued by the learned
Counsel for the claimants that deduction on
account of money spent by the deceased on
himself should be fixed at 1/4th of the
income instead of 1/3rd, since the family
members of the deceased or the claimants
were four. Learned Counsel has relied upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another3 to
submit that where family members of the
deceased are 4-6 in number, the deduction
on account of expenditure by the deceased
on himself should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd.
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
899
Reliance has also been placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
others4 and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and Others5 to the same end.

15. It is also argued by the learned
Counsel
for
the
claimants
that
the
multiplier to be applied, according to the
decision in Sarla Verma (supra), would be
'Eleven', going by the age of the deceased,
that was in the age bracket of 51-55 years.
It is emphasized that in the postmortem
report, the deceased was opined to be 55
years old at the time of accident. The
conclusion of the Tribunal, that the
deceased was aged above 60 years, is based
on pure conjecture. It is urged that the
multiplier of 'Five' in any case cannot be
applied.

16. It is next submitted by the learned
Counsel for the claimants that the deceased
being self-employed and in the age group
of
50-60,
is
entitled
to
award
of
compensation towards future prospects to
the extent of 10% of his income as held in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur
(supra). The Tribunal, in not awarding
future prospects or even considering that,
has committed a manifest of law. It is
submitted that the award is also grossly
flawed, inasmuch as the Tribunal has much
underestimated the loss of consortium to
the widow and not paid anything to the
sons, who too would be entitled to
consortium, relying on the decision in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur. It
has been held that each of the dependents
would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of consortium, that would aggregate to
a figure of Rs.40,000 X 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-.
Funeral
expenses,
again,
have
been
assessed miserably low. The decision of
their Lordships of the Supreme Court under
reference lays down a figure of Rs.15,000/-
towards
funeral
expenses,
whereas
Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. It is also
submitted that nothing has been awarded
towards loss of estate.

17. Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra,
learned Counsel for the insurers, submits
that the deceased was a low earning
member of the society in the twilight years
of his life. It cannot be said that he was
much in the productive phase of it. Three of
the claimants were, in no way, dependent
on the deceased, that is to say, the three
adult sons. The widow alone can be classed
as a dependent. It is submitted further by
Mr. Mishra that loss of consortium would
not be available for the adult sons, if the
principles in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur are to be understood for what they
mean on the issue. The income of the
deceased and the multiplier have been
correctly applied by the Tribunal and the
award does not merit any interference.

18. The basic parameters, on which
assessment of just compensation payable to
the dependents of a deceased is to be made
in the case of a motor accident, have been
laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (supra). In Sarla Verma, it has
been held:

"18. Basically only three facts
need to be established by the claimants for
assessing compensation in the case of
death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) the number of dependants.

The issues to be determined by
the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are:

(i) additions/deductions to be
made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the
deceased; and

(iii) the multiplier to be applied
with reference to the age of the deceased.

If
these
determinants
are
standardised, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will be
lesser need for detailed evidence. It will
also be easier for the insurance companies
to settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and
consistency,
the
Tribunals
should
determine compensation in cases of death,
by the following well-settled steps:

Step
1
(Ascertaining
the
multiplicand)

The income of the deceased per
annum should be determined. Out of the said
income a deduction should be made in regard to
the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living
expenses. The balance, which is considered to
be the contribution to the dependant family,
constitutes the multiplicand.

Step
2
(Ascertaining
the
multiplier)

Having regard to the age of the
deceased and period of active career, the
appropriate multiplier should be selected.
This does not mean ascertaining the
number of years he would have lived or
worked but for the accident. Having regard
to several imponderables in life and
economic factors, a table of multipliers
with reference to the age has been
identified by this Court. The multiplier
should be chosen from the said table with
reference to the age of the deceased.

Step 3 (Actual calculation)

The annual contribution to the
family (multiplicand) when multiplied by
such
multiplier
gives
the
"loss
of
dependency" to the family.

Thereafter,
a
conventional
amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs
10,000 may be added as loss of estate.
Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the
range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added
under the head of loss of consortium. But
no amount is to be awarded under the head
of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the
legal heirs of the deceased.

The funeral expenses, cost of
transportation of the body (if incurred) and
cost of any medical treatment of the
deceased before death (if incurred) should
also be added."

19. It must be said here that the basic
principles
for
determining
just
compensation, payable to the dependents of
a fatal motor accident victim, are ones lay
down above, with modification over time
regarding the sum relating to future
prospects in case of self-employed persons
and figures that are to be awarded under
non-conventional heads. Further, nonconventional heads have been streamlined
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
901
by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
subsequent authorities. These will be
spoken of a little later in this judgment.

20. Going by the parameters for the
determination of compensation, the first to
be encountered is the age of the deceased.
The deceased's wife has said clearly in her
testimony that her husband was aged 55
years at the time of accident. This assertion
by the wife of the deceased finds
corroboration by opinion evidence of a
medical expert, that is mentioned in the
postmortem report. The Tribunal has
undertaken an exercise in relative age
determination between the eldest son and
the father to disbelieve the evidence of the
deceased's wife as well as the doctor's
opinion about the deceased's age. The
reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is based
on some strained logic. For one, it proceeds
to assume that the deceased's wife, in her
testimony, has accurately described her
son's age as '40 years'. It is a case, where
there are no educational records of parties
nor other document to shed light on the
son's age or that of the deceased.

21. This Court has perused the
testimony of APW-1, Smt. Jiuti Devi.
Apparently, she is an illiterate woman, who
has
thumb
marked
her
testimony.
Therefore, the estimation of her eldest son's
age at about 40 years has to be taken with a
margin of error. This is particularly so as
the witness's age, given in her particulars
on the record of her evidence, mentions her
as aged 50 years. It is, indeed, impossible
to accept that the mother and the son would
be just 10 years apart in age, even in a rural
Indian setting. To the contrary, it is not that
unlikely, given the background of parties,
that a father and son could be 15, 16 or 17
years apart or a little more. The likelihood
is that the eldest son was younger than 40
at the relevant time. This is particularly so,
as the assertion about the deceased's age by
his wife finds corroboration by the Doctor's
opinion evidence. On the other hand, the
statement of APW-1 about her son's age is
without the basis of a document or an
expert estimation to corroborate. Therefore,
to disbelieve the assertion about the
deceased's age by APW-1, corroborated by
medical opinion, would not be correct.
Even if there is some doubt of a slight
difference in the deceased's age than that
stated and opined, the Act being a
beneficial legislation, the doubt must be
resolved in favour of the claimants. In the
opinion of this Court, therefore, the
Tribunal has erred in holding the deceased
to be aged 60 years or more. This Court
finds and holds that the deceased was aged
55 years.

22.

The
second
fundamental
parameter, on which compensation is to be
assessed, is the income of the deceased.
The Tribunal has opined it to be Rs. 75/-
per day, going more by an ipse dixit that
considering the deceased's age, he would
have earned no more in wage than Rs.75/- a
day. The accident is one that took place in
the year 2015. Regarding the principle
about determining income of a casual
labourer,
the
Supreme
Court
in
Ramachandrappa (supra) has observed :

"13. In the instant case, it is not in
dispute that the appellant was aged about
35 years and was working as a coolie and
was earning Rs 4500 per month at the time
of the accident. This claim is reduced by
the Tribunal to a sum of Rs 3000 only on
the assumption that the wages of a labourer
during the relevant period viz. in the year
2004, was Rs 100 per day. This assumption
in our view has no basis. Before the
Tribunal, though the Insurance Company
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was served, it did not choose to appear
before the court nor did it repudiate the
claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was
no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced
the claim of the claimant and determined
the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs 3000
per month. Secondly, the appellant was
working as a coolie and therefore, we
cannot
expect
him
to
produce
any
documentary evidence to substantiate his
claim. In the absence of any other evidence
contrary to the claim made by the claimant,
in our view, in the facts of the present case,
the Tribunal should have accepted the
claim of the claimant.

14. We hasten to add that in all
cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal
need not accept the claim of the claimant in
the absence of supporting material. It
depends on the facts of each case. In a
given case, if the claim made is so
exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary
to ground realities, the Tribunal may not
accept the claim and may proceed to
determine the possible income by resorting
to some guesswork, which may include the
ground realities prevailing at the relevant
point of time.

15. In the present case, the
appellant was working as a coolie and in
and around the date of the accident, the
wage of a labourer was between Rs 100 to
Rs 150 per day or Rs 4500 per month. In
our view, the claim was honest and bona
fide and, therefore, there was no reason for
the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly
earning of the appellant from Rs 4500 to Rs
3000 per month. We, therefore, accept his
statement that his monthly earning was Rs
4500." (Emphasis by Court)

23. No doubt, Ramachandrappa was
a case relating to a much younger man,
who was working as a coolie. Moreover, it
was not a fatal accident. But, the principle
about estimating the monthly income of a
casual labourer in the said decision would
apply. Ramachandrappa was decided
relating to an accident that took place some
time in the year 2004. At that time, taking
into account the ground realities, the daily
income of a casual labourer was accepted
by their Lordships to be in the range of
Rs.100-150/- per day. The accident here
took place in the year 2015. This Court is
in agreement with Mr. Hemant Kumar,
learned Counsel for the claimants, that
considering the rising price index and the
corresponding increase in wages, a dailywage of Rs.250/- per day asserted by the
claimants is, in no way, unbelievable. To
the contrary, reckoning the ground realities,
which this Court, as a Court of Appeal on
facts and law, is as competent as the
Tribunal to determine, it is held that the
deceased would have earned a daily-wage
of Rs. 250/-, contemporaneous in time to
the accident. The finding of the Tribunal,
that the deceased was working at a wage of
Rs. 75/- per day, is indeed perverse. The
said finding is set aside and it is held that
the deceased had a daily income of Rs.
250/-, which would work out to a sum of
Rs.7500/- per month.

24. The third parameter, on which the
substantive
compensation
is
to
be
determined, is the number of dependents.
This parameter comes to the fore in
determining what deduction is to be
allowed for the personal expenses of the
deceased. It has been argued here that the
deceased had a family of four, including his
widow and three sons and, therefore, the
deduction towards personal expenses ought
to have been a fraction of one-fourth; not
one-third. This submission is, again,
inspired by the observations of their
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
903
Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (supra), where it has been held :

"30. Though in some cases the
deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4
SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply
standardised
deductions.
Having
considered several subsequent decisions of
this Court, we are of the view that where
the deceased was married, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where
the number of dependent family members
is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members
exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a
bachelor and the claimants are the parents,
the deduction follows a different principle.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is
deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would
tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which
event the contribution to the parent(s) and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
Further, subject to evidence to the contrary,
the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependant
and the mother alone will be considered as
a dependant. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependants, because they
will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as
the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the
family. However, where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where
he has a widowed mother and large number
of younger non-earning sisters or brothers,
his personal and living expenses may be
restricted to one-third and contribution to
the family will be taken as two-third."

25. Here, it must be remarked that the
deceased in this case, no doubt, left behind
his wife and three sons, but the sons do not
appear to be dependent on their father
financially. This Court has noticed the
testimony of APW-1, where she has said
that her eldest son, Laxmikant, is employed
as a labourer; Jagdish works with a private
employer; whereas Ramesh works with a
private employer in the City of Ballia. Two
of the sons are married. This profile for
three of the claimants, who are adult sons
of the deceased, do not show them to be
dependents. In the circumstances, this
Court understands that the principle in
Sarla Verma would operate to endorse a
deduction of one-third and not one-fourth.
This Court, therefore, is in agreement with
the Tribunal's view that deduction for
personal expenses of the deceased here
ought to be a fraction of one-third of his
total income, and not one-fourth, as urged
by Mr. Hemant Kumar.

26. Once the age of the deceased has
been found to be 55 years, the appropriate
multiplier has to be applied according to
the table in Paragraph No. 42 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma. The aforesaid table for the
application of multiplier, based on the age
bracket of the deceased, has been approved
by
the
Constitution
Bench
of
their
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lordships in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi (supra). In a recent
decision of the Supreme Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder
Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur, following the
Constitution
Bench
decision
last
mentioned, it was held:

"40. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that
the standards fixed in Sarla Verma (supra)
would provide guidance for appropriate
deduction towards personal and living
expenses, and affirmed the conclusion in
para 43.6 of Reshma Kumari (supra).

(b) Determination of Multiplier

41. With respect to the multiplier,
the Court in Sarla Verma (supra), prepared
a chart for fixing the applicable multiplier
in accordance with the age of the deceased,
after considering the judgments in General
Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v.
Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176,
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4
SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720.

42. The relevant extract from the
said chart i.e. Column 4 has been set out
hereinbelow for ready reference:--

Age of the deceased Multiplier (Column
4)
Upto 15 years
-
15 to 20 years
18
21 to 25 years
18
26 to 30 years
17
31 to 35 years
16
36 to 40 years
15
41 to 45 years
14
46 to 50 years
13
51 to 55 years
11
56 to 60 years
9
61 to 65 years
7
Above 65 years
5

43. The Court in Sarla Verma
(supra) held:--

"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, M-14
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."
 (emphasis supplied)

44. In Reshma Kumari (supra),
this Court affirmed Column 4 of the chart
prepared inSarla Verma (supra), and held
that this would provide uniformity and
consistency in determining the multiplier to
be applied. The Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi (supra) affirmed the chart
fixing the multiplier as expounded in Sarla
Verma (supra), and held:--

"44. At this stage, we must
immediately say that insofar as the
aforesaid
multiplicand/multiplier
is
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
905
concerned, it has to be accepted on the
basis of income established by the legal
representatives of the deceased. Future
prospects are to be added to the sum on the
percentage basis and "income" means
actual income less than the tax paid. The
multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla
Verma which has been approved in Reshma
Kumari with which we concur.

...

59.6. The selection of multiplier
shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla
Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment." (emphasis supplied)"

27. The deceased being 55 years of
age, the case would fall in the age bracket
of 51-55 years of the table in Sarla Verma,
for which a multiplier of 'Eleven' is
prescribed. The Tribunal has not only fixed
a multiplier of 'Five' on a very different
assessment of age than what has been
found by this Court, but has also adopted a
multiplier
according
to
Schedule-II
appended to the Act framed under Section
163-A. Going by the principles laid down
in the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, the appropriate multiplier to
apply would be by reference to the table in
Paragraph No. 42 of the decision in Sarla
Verma; and not the Schedule to which the
Tribunal has taken resort. The deceased
being found by this Court to be aged 55
years, his case would fall in the age bracket
of 51-55 years, enumerated in the table in
Sarla Verma. The relevant multiplier to
that age bracket is 'Eleven'. Thus, it has to
be held that the multiplier applicable would
be 'Eleven'; and not 'Five'.

28. Now, to assess the basic
parameters of compensation, this Court
finds that going by the deceased's daily
income, that is to say, Rs. 250/- per day, the
deceased would have a monthly income of
Rs. 7,500/-. A fortiori, he would have an
annual income of Rs. 90,000/-. Deducting a
fraction of one-third towards the personal
expenditure
of
the
deceased,
the
multiplicand would work out to a figure of
Rs. 60,000/-. Applying the determined
multiplier of 'Eleven' to the annual
dependency, the total dependency of the
claimants would be a sum of 60,000 X 11 =
Rs. 6,60,000/-. Thus, Rs. 6,60,000/- would
be
substantive
dependency
that
the
claimants would be entitled to. But, this is
not where the matter rests, going by the
principles of law that have been evolved
over time. This Court finds that the
Tribunal has not added anything towards
future
prospects.
A
reading
of
the
Tribunal's award makes it appear that the
Tribunal thought that the deceased had no
future prospects. This Court is afraid that
the Tribunal's approach does not accord at
all with current judicial opinion. The
Constitution Bench in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi went much ahead
of Sarla Verma in finding for selfemployed persons, a case for future
prospects, where their dependents, in the
event of a fatal accident, were held entitled
to add future prospects. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, it
was held:

"56. The seminal issue is the
fixation of future prospects in cases of
deceased who are self-employed or on a
fixed salary. Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v.
DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] has
carved out an exception permitting the
claimants to bring materials on record to
get the benefit of addition of future
prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
future prospects in respect of the said
category.

57. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration, we are disposed to think
when
we
accept
the
principle
of
standardisation, there is really no rationale
not to apply the said principle to the selfemployed or a person who is on a fixed
salary. To follow the doctrine of actual
income at the time of death and not to add
any amount with regard to future prospects
to
the
income
for
the purpose
of
determination of multiplicand would be
unjust. The determination of income while
computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will
come within the ambit and sweep of just
compensation as postulated under Section
168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who
had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant
of annual increment, there is an acceptable
certainty. But to state that the legal
representatives of a deceased who was on a
fixed salary would not be entitled to the
benefit of future prospects for the purpose
of computation of compensation would be
inapposite. It is because the criterion of
distinction between the two in that event
would be certainty on the one hand and
staticness on the other. One may perceive
that the comparative measure is certainty
on the one hand and uncertainty on the
other but such a perception is fallacious. It
is because the price rise does affect a selfemployed person; and that apart there is
always an incessant effort to enhance one's
income for sustenance. The purchasing
capacity of a salaried person on permanent
job when increases because of grant of
increments and pay revision or for some
other change in service conditions, there is
always a competing attitude in the private
sector to enhance the salary to get better
efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a
person who is self-employed is bound to
garner
his
resources
and
raise
his
charges/fees so that he can live with same
facilities. To have the perception that he is
likely to remain static and his income to
remain
stagnant
is
contrary
to
the
fundamental concept of human attitude
which
always
intends
to
live
with
dynamism and move and change with the
time. Though it may seem appropriate that
there cannot be certainty in addition of
future prospects to the existing income
unlike in the case of a person having a
permanent job, yet the said perception does
not really deserve acceptance. 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 selfemployed or on a fixed 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.

58. The controversy does not end
here. The question still remains whether
3 All. Jiuti Devi & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Rai & Ors.
907
there should be no addition where the age
of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla
Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009)
2 SCC (Cri) 1002] thinks it appropriate not
to add any amount and the same has been
approved
inReshma
Kumari
[Reshma
Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65
: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 826] . Judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that salary does not remain the
same.