# Karan Singh v. Mandaliya Prabandhak, National Insurance Co. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1098
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 443 of 2006
- **Bench:** Subhash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karan-singh-v-mandaliya-prabandhak-national-insurance-co-muzaffar-nagar-ors-46513
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 & 173
- Compensation - Enhancement - Income of
deceased - income of deceased Rs. 3500/- per
month which he earned from work in Bartiks
Courier - Tribunal presumed his notional
income as Rs. 15,000/-p.a - Held - Court
assessed notional income of deceased to be Rs.
100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month which
amounts to Rs. 36,000/- p.a. - Future Prospect
- age of the deceased being between 21-25
years at the time of accident an additional
amount of 40 % be added to the income as
future
prospect
-
Personal
Expenses
-
deduction in the head of personal expenses of
the deceased who was bachelor at the time of
accident : 50 % - Multiplier - Tribunal wrongly
applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of
parents - multiplier of 18 should be applied
because the age of deceased was between 2125 years at the time of accident - conventional
head - conventional head namely loss of estate
and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15000/-
and 15000/- respectively - aforesaid amount
should be enhanced @ 10 % in every three
years
-
Since,
deceased
was
unmarried,
therefore, no amount in the head of loss of
consortium can be given - claimants/appellants
shall be entitled to 7% simple interest from the
date of filing of application till the date of
actual payment (Para 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21 )

Partly Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on:

## Text

1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2021)12ILR A1098
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 443 of 2006

Karan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Mandaliya Prabandhak, National Insurance Co.
Muzaffar Nagar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri N.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, Sri
R.P. Ram, Sri S.M.Upadhyay, Sri Shyam Murari
Upadhyay, Smt Archana Singh, Sri Sudhir Dixit,
Ms. Manjima Singh, Ms. Pragya Pandey.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 & 173
- Compensation - Enhancement - Income of
deceased - income of deceased Rs. 3500/- per
month which he earned from work in Bartiks
Courier - Tribunal presumed his notional
income as Rs. 15,000/-p.a - Held - Court
assessed notional income of deceased to be Rs.
100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month which
amounts to Rs. 36,000/- p.a. - Future Prospect
- age of the deceased being between 21-25
years at the time of accident an additional
amount of 40 % be added to the income as
future
prospect
-
Personal
Expenses
-
deduction in the head of personal expenses of
the deceased who was bachelor at the time of
accident : 50 % - Multiplier - Tribunal wrongly
applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of
parents - multiplier of 18 should be applied
because the age of deceased was between 2125 years at the time of accident - conventional
head - conventional head namely loss of estate
and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15000/-
and 15000/- respectively - aforesaid amount
should be enhanced @ 10 % in every three
years
-
Since,
deceased
was
unmarried,
therefore, no amount in the head of loss of
consortium can be given - claimants/appellants
shall be entitled to 7% simple interest from the
date of filing of application till the date of
actual payment (Para 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21 )

Partly Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on:

1. Mohd. Unus Vs Rais Najnien Begum & ors.
2015(2)TAC526

2. St. of Har. & anr. Vs Jasbir Kaur & ors. (2003)7
SCC 484

3. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Tranport Corporation &
anr., (2009)6SCC 121

4. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., 2017 5 Supreme(SC) 1050

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel
for appellant as well as Ms. Manjima Singh,
Advocate holding brief of Ms. Archana Singh,
learned counsel for Insurance Company and
perused the record.

2. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor
Vehicles
Act
has
been
filed
by
the
claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and
award
dated
08.11.2005
passed
by
the
Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T., Court No.
6, Aligarh by which a sum of Rs. 85,000/- along
with 6% interest has been awarded as
compensation on account of death of deceased.

3. Facts in brief are that an application
under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act was filed
by the claimant/appellant seeking compensation
to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 12 % interest
alleging that on 15.09.2000, deceased Vivek
Kumar Singh son of appellant was traveling by
bus bearing no. UP14B2331 from Delhi, as it
arrived in the limit of police station Gabhana, a
truck bearing no. H.N.V.9465 coming from
11 All. Karan Singh Vs. Mandaliya Prabandhak, National Insurance Co. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors.
1099
opposite direction (Aligarh) driven rashly and
negligently by its driver collided with the bus in
which deceased Vivek Kumar Singh sustained
injuries and died. F.I.R. in this regard was
lodged by one Prem Pal r/o Anoop Sahar as
Crime No. 218 of 2000 under Sections 279, 338,
304-A and 427 IPC. Deceased was aged about
21 years and earned Rs. 3500/- by working in
Courier Company. Proceedings were contested
by truck owner & driver as well as Insurance
Company by filing written statement and
denying
the
allegations
made
by
the
claimant/appellant.

4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of
pleadings and after appreciating the evidence
brought on record by the parties, both oral and
documentary held that accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both
the offending vehicles and determined the
liability 50-50%. Learned Tribunal recorded the
finding on the basis of oral testimony of eye
witness P.W. 2 Lakkhi who proved the manner
and mode of accident. It was stated by him that
he is Chaukidar in the police station concerned
and his village is located near place of accident.
Accident took place in his presence on
15.09.2000 at about 12-1 o'clock in the night. A
bus bearing no. UP14B2331 was coming from
the side of Delhi and truck coming from the side
of Aligarh collided. The driver of truck was
driving it rashly and negligently in which Vivek
Kumar Singh s/o Karan Singh aged about 21-22
years died. He informed to the police station.
O.P.W.1 Vijaypal Singh, conductor of the bus
bearing
no.
UP14B2331
stated
that
on
15.09.2000, he was plying the bus from Khurja
to Kanpur. At about 2 o'clock in the night near
Gabhana bridge, a truck bearing no. H.N.V.9465
driven by its driver rashly and negligently came
from the side of Aligarh and collided with the
bus causing damages to it and passengers also
got injuries. O.P.W. 2 Brijpal, the driver of the
bus bearing no. UP14B2331 has also made
similar statement. The testimony of P.W. 2,
O.P.W.1 & O.P.W.2 was unshakable in crossexamination. After investigation of the case,
charge sheet was submitted by the police. This
fact was also taken into account by learned
Tribunal.

5. On the question of quantum, learned
Tribunal found that appellant failed to lead any
evidence about income of deceased as Rs.
3500/- per month which he earned from work in
Bartiks Courier, so presumed his notional
income as Rs. 15,000/-p.a, deducted 1/3 towards
personal expenses and after applying multiplier
of 08 at the age of claimant (father) determined
the compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-
(eighty thousand) and further awarded a sum of
Rs. 5000/- funeral expenses. In this manner, a
total sum of Rs. 85,000/- was determined as
compensation payable to the claimant/appellant.

6. Learned counsel for appellant submits
that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the
notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-
p.a. and also applied the multiplier on the basis
of the age of parents. No amount has been
assessed for future prospect, loss of estate, love
& affection. Very less amount has been assessed
for funeral expenses. In this way award is very
meagre.
Learned
counsel
for
respondent
opposed the above arguments.

7. Considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for Insurance Company and
perused the record.

8. The submission of learned counsel for
appellant is that notional income of Rs. 15000/-
p.a. of deceased as presumed by the tribunal is
very meagre. In this regard, it is noteworthy that
deceased was unskilled person whose income
was not proved. In the case of Mohd. Unus; Vs.
Rais;
Najnien
Begum
and
others2015(2)TAC526, this court enhanced the
notional income of Rs.15000/- to Rs.36000/- p.a.
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Likewise, in the case of State of Haryana and
another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003)7
SCC 484. Hon'ble the Apex Court has fixed the
notional income to be Rs. 3000/- per month
where death of deceased aged about 25 years
took place in the year 1999. In the present case,
incident took place in the year 2000, therefore,
as per observation made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as this court in the aforesaid cases,
the notional income of deceased be assumed as
Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month
which amounts to Rs. 36,000/- p.a.

9. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal
cannot be said to be right in presuming the
notional income of the deceased Rs. 15000/- p.a.
on the place of Rs.36000/- .

10. In the case of Sarla Verma and others
Vs. Delhi Tranport Corporation and another,
(2009)6SCC 121, it was held that multiplier to
be used should be as provided in column 4 of the
judgment. Multiplier prescribed for the age
group of 21-25 years is 18. It may be relevant to
quote para 42 of the said judgment which reads
as under:

"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."

11. The scheme of multiplier has been
again affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs.
Pranay
Sethi
and
others,
2017
Supreme(SC) 1050.

12. In the view of the dictum of Hon'ble
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
(Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra), the multiplier
of 18 should be applied at the age of 21-25
because the age of deceased was between 21-25
years at the time of accident as per record. In
this regard the multiplier applied by the learned
tribunal seems to be incorrect.

13. So far as the amount to be deducted
towards personal expenses in the case of
bachelor is concerned, it has been held by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra) that for determination of the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal and
living expenses, the Tribunals and the Courts
shall be guided by Paragraphs no. 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma (supra) case. Para 31 deals with the
deduction in the case of bachelor. Para 30 to 32
are quoted below:

"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 Chandra4, the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions.
Having considered several subsequent decisions
of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 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 onefifth (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
11 All. Karan Singh Vs. Mandaliya Prabandhak, National Insurance Co. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors.
1101
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."

14. In view of the above, deduction in the
head of personal expenses of the deceased who
was bachelor at the time of accident are to be
made to the extent of 50 % on the place 1/3 of
the amount of the income.

15. Further submitted by learned counsel for
the appellants that no compensation has been
determined in the head of future prospects.
Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi
(Supra) that while determining the income, an
addition of 40 % of the established income should
be awarded where the deceased being self
employed or on the fixed salary was below the
age of 40 years and an addition of 25 % where the
deceased was between the age of 40-50 years and
10 % where the deceased was between the age of
50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.

16. Learned tribunal has not determined any
amount of compensation in the head of future
prospects as provided by Hon'ble the Apex Court
in the aforesaid case. In this regard, it has
committed the manifest error of law in not
determining any amount in future prospects of the
deceased.

17. In view of the above the age of the
deceased being between 21-25 years at the time
of accident, the additional amount of 40 % be
added to the income as future prospect.

18. As the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants in support of amount
for conventional head is concerned, Hon'ble the
Apex Court has held in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) that reasonable figure for conventional
head namely loss of estate, consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs. 15000/-, 40000/-
and 15000/- respectively. The aforesaid amount
should be enhanced @ 10 % in every three years.

19. In this way , learned tribunal is not
right on the point of making determination of
amount for loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Since, deceased was unmarried, therefore, no
amount in the head of loss of consortium can be
given.

20. In view of the above facts and
discussions, the compensation to be paid to the
claimant/appellant has to be redetermined as
under:

S.No.
Heads
Calculation
i
Income
Rs. 3000/- per
month
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ii
40 % of (i)
above to be
added
as
future
prospects
(Rs.
3000
+
1200)
=
Rs.
4200/-
per
month
iii
50 % of (ii)
deducted as
personal
expenses of
deceased
(Rs. 2100/-)
iv
Compensati
on
after
multiplier
of 18
(2100 x 12 x
18) = 4,53,600/-
v
Loss
of
Estate
Rs. 15,000/-
vi
Funeral
Expenses
Rs. 15000/-

Total
compensati
on awarded
Rs. 4,83,600/-

21. The claimants/appellants shall also be
entitled to 7% simple interest as awarded by
tribunal on the amount from the date of filing of
application till the date of actual payment.

22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the
claimant/appellant is Partly Allowed and award
stands modified to the extent directed above and
the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for payment
of Rs. 483,600/- (four lacs eighty three thousand
six hundred) as determined above from the
opposite parties no 1 & 2 in the same proportion as
directed by the learned tribunal.

23. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1102
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 570 of 2015

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sri Niyamatullah & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
T.J.S. Makker

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anshul Baranwal

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A -
Compensation on structured formula basis -
grant of compensation under Section 163-A of
the Act on the basis of the structured formula
is in the nature of a final award - adjudication
thereunder is required to be made without any
requirement of any proof of negligence of the
driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the
accident - in a proceeding under Section 163-A
of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise
any defence of negligence on the part of the
victim - award under Section 163-A of the Act
is not open to be assailed on the ground that
the claimant was a tortfeasor or one guilty of
negligence (Para 11, 13)

Dismissed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sinitha Vs &
ors., (2012) 2 SCC 356

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunil Kumar &
anr., (2019) 12 SCC 398

3. Shivaji & anr. Vs Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., AIR 2018 SC 3705.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This case was directed to be listed in the
additional
cause
list
vide
order
dated
02.12.2021, but it has appeared in the daily