# Kamal Singh Sachan & Ors v. Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 800
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2706 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamal-singh-sachan-ors-v-smt-savitri-devi-ors-48591
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Contributory negligence -
Innova car and offending truck dashed
into each other from opposite direction -
both the vehicles have damaged on front
side - site plan shows that Innova car was
on its correct side of the road and the
truck was on its wrong side - hence it was
head on collusion but on the correct side
of the Innova car - truck came on the side
of the Innov car & resulted in the death of
its driver - However the Innova car was
also not on the extreme left side of the
road - keeping all the facts together Court
held the driver of the truck to be 80%
negligent and the driver of the Innova car
i.e. the deceased to be 20% negligent -
20%
deduction
towards
contributory
negligence (Para 11)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Quantum of Compensation -
income tax returns of the deceased show
his annual income to be Rs. 1,78,401,
Annual income = Rs.1,78,000 - deceased
self employed and below the age of 40
years, future prospects: 40% = Rs.71,200
-
Total
income:
Rs.1,78,000/-
+
Rs.71,200/- = Rs.2,49,200 - there were
four
dependents
upon
the
deceased
amongst which, one was minor, hence,
1/3rd will have to be deducted towards
personal expense of the deceased -
Income after deduction of 1/3rd = Rs.
1,66,134 - At the time of the death, the
age of the deceased was 27 years,
Multiplier applicable = 17 - Loss of
dependency: Rs.1,66,134 x 17 = Rs.
28,24,278 - appellants shall be entitled to
get Rs, 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.
15,000/- for funeral expenses, wife of the
deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 40,000/-
for loss of consortium, minor son of the
deceased would get Rs. 50,000/- as filial
consortium; Amount under non pecuniary
head = Rs.1,20,000 - Total compensation:
Rs.28,24,278 + 1,20,000 = Rs 2944278 -
Court held the driver of the truck to be
80% negligent and deceased to be 20%
negligent - Amount after 20% deduction
towards
contributory
negligence
=
Rs.23,55,423 which is rounded off to Rs
2355500 - Interest at rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited (14, 15, 16)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposited. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

23. 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 be passed by Tribunal.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 time has
elapsed, the amount be deposited in the
Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized
Bank without F.D.R.

27. We request the learned Registrar
General that a copy of this order be
circulated to the Tribunals in the State of
Uttar Pradesh after seeking approval from
Hon'ble the Chief Justice so that the
Tribunal may not commit such mistake of
not granting future loss of income and
reduction of multiplier.

28. A copy of judgment be sent to the
concerned Judge so that he may not make
such mistakes in future and we deprecate the
reasoning given by him.
----------
(2022)05ILR A800
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2706 of 2015

Kamal Singh Sachan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors. ...Respondents
5 All. Kamal Singh Sachan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors.
801
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anurag Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amaresh Sinha, Sri Anubhav Sinha

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Contributory negligence -
Innova car and offending truck dashed
into each other from opposite direction -
both the vehicles have damaged on front
side - site plan shows that Innova car was
on its correct side of the road and the
truck was on its wrong side - hence it was
head on collusion but on the correct side
of the Innova car - truck came on the side
of the Innov car & resulted in the death of
its driver - However the Innova car was
also not on the extreme left side of the
road - keeping all the facts together Court
held the driver of the truck to be 80%
negligent and the driver of the Innova car
i.e. the deceased to be 20% negligent -
20%
deduction
towards
contributory
negligence (Para 11)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Quantum of Compensation -
income tax returns of the deceased show
his annual income to be Rs. 1,78,401,
Annual income = Rs.1,78,000 - deceased
self employed and below the age of 40
years, future prospects: 40% = Rs.71,200
-
Total
income:
Rs.1,78,000/-
+
Rs.71,200/- = Rs.2,49,200 - there were
four
dependents
upon
the
deceased
amongst which, one was minor, hence,
1/3rd will have to be deducted towards
personal expense of the deceased -
Income after deduction of 1/3rd = Rs.
1,66,134 - At the time of the death, the
age of the deceased was 27 years,
Multiplier applicable = 17 - Loss of
dependency: Rs.1,66,134 x 17 = Rs.
28,24,278 - appellants shall be entitled to
get Rs, 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.
15,000/- for funeral expenses, wife of the
deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 40,000/-
for loss of consortium, minor son of the
deceased would get Rs. 50,000/- as filial
consortium; Amount under non pecuniary
head = Rs.1,20,000 - Total compensation:
Rs.28,24,278 + 1,20,000 = Rs 2944278 -
Court held the driver of the truck to be
80% negligent and deceased to be 20%
negligent - Amount after 20% deduction
towards
contributory
negligence
=
Rs.23,55,423 which is rounded off to Rs
2355500 - Interest at rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited (14, 15, 16)
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors. F.A.F.O. No. 1818 of
2012 dt 19.7.2016

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. 2017 (SC) 1093

3. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Cor. &
anr., 2009 ACJ 1298

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

5. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. 2007 (2) GLH 291

6. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in F.A.F.O.
No.23 of 2001

7. Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A.F.O. No. 2871 of
2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the
claimants have challenged the judgment
and order dated 27.07.2015 passed by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.6, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to
as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 103 of 2012
awarding
sum
of
Rs.10,09,500/-
as
compensation to the claimants with interest
at the rate of 7% per annum.
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anubhav
Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim
petition is filed before Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') with the averments that on
21.10.2011, the deceased was returning from
his brick kiln to his house in Kidwai Nagar,
Kanpur by his Innova car bearing No.
UP78CE4408. When he reached between
Shambhua railway crossing and village
Hadaha, a truck bearing No. UP78N5859,
which was being driven very rashly and
negligently by its driver, hit the Innova car
from opposite direction. In this accident, the
deceased Sheel Sachan sustained fatal
injuries and died on the spot. First
information report of this accident was
lodged in the concerned police station. After
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the driver of the aforesaid offending
truck. Learned Tribunal held the drivers of
both the vehicles negligent to the tune of 50
% each and awarded Rs. 10,09,500/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of 7 %
per annum. Aggrieved with the quantum of
award and finding of contributory negligence,
this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The
liability of insurance company to pay the
compensation is also not disputed but the
finding of contributory negligence is
challenged by the appellants. It is submitted
by learned counsel for the appellants that at
the time of the accident, the deceased was
not at fault and the accident had taken place
due to sole negligence of the truck driver.

5. The term 'negligence' means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

6. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

7. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And
Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under:

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
5 All. Kamal Singh Sachan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors.
803
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by the
opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection where
two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a
fast moving vehicle to slow down and if
driver did not slow down at intersection, but
continued to proceed at a high speed
without caring to notice that another vehicle
was crossing, then the conduct of driver
necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle
was being driven by him rashly as well as
negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly
directs that the driver of every motor vehicle
to slow down vehicle at every intersection or
junction of roads or at a turning of the road.
It is also provided that driver of the vehicle
should not enter intersection or junction of
roads unless he makes sure that he would
not thereby endanger any other person.
Merely, because driver of the Truck was
driving vehicle on the left side of road would
not absolve him from his responsibility to
slow down vehicle as he approaches
intersection of roads, particularly when he
could have easily seen, that the car over
which
deceased
was
riding,
was
approaching intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be
regarded to some extent as coming within
the principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (sec.110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0
ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

8. In this regard, we have perused the
evidence regarding contributory negligence
on record.

9. Learned Tribunal has refused to
rely on the site plan prepared by the
investigating officer during investigation of
the concerned criminal case and held that it
is not the site plan which could be relied on
for
determination
of
contributory
negligence but other factors are to be seen
such as first information report, chargesheet
and
evidence
of
independent
witnesses. Learned Tribunal mainly relied
on technical inspection reports of both the
vehicles i.e. Innova car and the offending
truck and came to the conclusion that there
is damage in the front side of both the
vehicles. In this way, learned Tribunal
concluded that since there is damage on the
front side hence, both the drivers were
negligent
in
driving
their
respective
vehicles. Learned Tribunal also relied on
the evidence of eye witness PW2 who had
deposed that both the vehicles dashed into
each other from opposite direction. On the
basis of this evidence, learned Tribunal
held contributory negligence of both the
drivers to the tune of 50% each but we are
unable to concur with the aforesaid finding.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted
that
investigating
officer
prepared site plan but in the index thereof,
he wrongly mentioned the truck with single
arrow and Innova car with double arrow
while making entry in general diary of
police station regarding spot inspection, the
investigating officer has rightly mentioned
the Innova car with single arrow and truck
with double arrow. Learned counsel also
submitted
that
in
this
regard,
a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by
the appellants.

11. We have gone through the
supplementary affidavit which supports the
arguments advanced by the appellants as
above. It is also pertinent to mention that
the driver of the truck has not stepped into
the witness box. It is correct that both the
vehicles have damaged on front side but it
does not mean that it was head on collusion
in the middle of the road because the site
plan shows that Innova car was on its
correct side of the road and the truck was
on its wrong side hence, it was head on
collusion but on the correct side of the
Innova car. Hence, it is clear that the truck
came on the side of the Innov car and
resulted in the death of its driver. However,
we cannot ignore the fact that the Innova
car was not on the extreme left side of the
road. Hence, keeping all the facts together
in the light of the evidence on record, the
finding of the learned Tribunal regarding
contributory negligence to the tune of 50%
each cannot be sustained. We hold the
driver of the truck to be 80% negligent and
the driver of the Innova car i.e. the
deceased to be 20% negligent. Now, it
5 All. Kamal Singh Sachan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors.
805
takes us to determine the quantum of
compensation.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the deceased was a graduate
in Engineering. He was partner in three
brick kilns and agriculturist also. The
deceased was an income tax payee. The
income tax returns filed by him are on
record but the learned Tribunal did not rely
on those returns. Learned Tribunal has
assessed the annual income of the deceased
at Rs. 1,56,000/- which is on the lower
side. Although, learned counsel for the
insurance company submitted that Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income of the
deceased and it does not call for any
interference but we cannot shut our eyes
from the fact that the income tax returns of
the deceased show his annual income to be
Rs. 1,78,401/-. Hence, we hold the annual
income of the deceased in round figures to
be Rs. 1,78,000/-.

13. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellants that the learned Tribunal has not
awarded any sum for future loss of income. It
is vehemently objected by learned counsel for
the insurance company and he submitted that
no future loss of income should be granted.

14. We are unable to accept the
aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for
the insurance company as per judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 2017 (SC) 1093 in which it is held
that in case of death of a self employed
person, his legal representatives shall be
entitled to get compensation for future loss of
income. In this case, it is not disputed that the
deceased was self employed and he was
below the age of 40 years. Hence, as per the
aforesaid judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra),
40% shall be added to the income of the
deceased for future loss of income. There
were four dependents upon the deceased
amongst which, appellant no.4 was minor,
hence, 1/3rd will have to be deducted towards
personal expense of the deceased whereas the
Tribunal has deducted 1/4th . At the time of
the death, the age of the deceased was 27
years, hence, as per the judgment of Sarla
Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298,
the multiplier of 17 shall be applied.

15. A perusal of the impugned
judgment shows that learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium,
Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love and affection and
Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses which are on
the lower side. As per the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants shall be
entitled to get Rs, 15,000/- for loss of estate
and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses apart
from it, the wife of the deceased shall be
entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium
and the minor son of the deceased would get
Rs. 50,000/- as filial consortium since he has
lost his father at a very tender age. In this
way, the appellants together will get Rs.
1,20,000/- as non-pecuniary damages. On the
basis of above discussion, total amount of
compensation payable to the appellants is
computed hereinbelow:

i. Annual income = Rs.1,78,000/-
per annum.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects: 40% = Rs.71,200/-

iii. Total income: Rs.1,78,000/- +
Rs.71,200/- = Rs.2,49,200/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3rd = Rs. 1,66,134/-

v. Multiplier applicable = 17
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

vi.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.1,66,134/- x 17 = Rs. 28,24,278/-

vii. Amount under non pecuniary
head = Rs.1,20,000/-

viii.
Total
compensation:
Rs.28,24,278/-
+
1,20,000/-
=
Rs.
29,44,278/-

ix. Amount after 20% deduction
towards
contributory
negligence
=
Rs.23,55,423/- which is rounded off to Rs.
23,55,500/-.

16. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

17. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

18. No other grounds are argued
orally when the matter was heard.

19. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondent shall
deposit the amount 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.

20. In view of the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the
case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s
The Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd., reported in 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.
----------
5 All. Smt. Raj Biri & Ors. Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Ghaziabad & Anr.
807
(2022)05ILR A807
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2783 of 2008

Smt. Raj Biri & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Ghaziabad
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.K. Dwivedi, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey,
Sri Bipin, Sri Harish Yadav, Sri Sunil Kumar
Yadav, Sri Yogesh Kumar Sinha, Sri Y.K.
Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, Sri Amaresh Sinha,
Sri Anubhav Sinha, Sri Ramanuj Pandey

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Quantum of Compensation -
Deceased doing dairy business - Court
considered his income to be Rs 5000 per month
- Annual Income : Rs.60,000 Per annum
(Rs.5,000 X 12) - Deceased self employed &
below 35 yrs therefore Percentage towards
future prospects 40% : Rs. 24,000 - Total
income : Rs. 60,000 + Rs.24,000 = Rs. 84,000 -
deceased survived by his wife, three minor
children and mother, who were dependent on
him therefore Income after deduction 1/3 : Rs.
84,000 - 28,000 = Rs.56,000 - Deceased aged
35 years Multiplier applicable : 16 - Loss of
Dependency : Rs. 56,000 X 16 = Rs.8,96,000 -
Amount under non pecuniary head : Rs. 70,000
- deceased had three minor children Filial
Consortium : Rs.50,000 X 3 = Rs.1,50,000 -
Total compensation : Rs.8,96,000 + Rs.70,000/-
+ Rs.1,50,000 = Rs.11,16,000 - Interst at rate
of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited
Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr., 2021 (4) TAC 673
(Supreme Court)

2. Puttamma & ors. Vs K.L. Narayana Reddy &
anr., 2014 (1) TAC 926 & Kishan Gopal & anr.Vs
Lala & ors., 2013 (4) TAC 5

3. National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi [2014
(4) TAC 637 (SC)]

4. Smt.Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp.
[2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)]

5. Pappu & ors. Vs Vinod Kumar Lamba & anr.,
2018 (0) Supreme (SC) 42

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

7. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., [2007(2) GLH 291]

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

9. First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016
(Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd.) dt 19.3.2021

10. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Vs U.O.I. & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the
claimants-appellants
against
the
judgment & order dated 30.05.2008 passed
by
learned
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.4,
District
Ghaziabad
in
Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.158 of 2006
(Smt. Raj Biri and Others Vs. Regional
Manager, Regional Office, U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation),
whereby
the