# Km. Cheenu v. Bishambhar Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 613
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-04
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 3075 of 2007
- **Bench:** Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-cheenu-v-bishambhar-singh-anr-51068
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections
166
-
Enhancement
of
compensation
- Claimant
- appellant
received grievous injuries in accident and
became permanent disable to extent of
75% - FIR lodged against truck driver u/s
279, 338, 304A I.P.C. - Claim petition was
filed
-
The
Claims
Tribunal
after
considering evidence found that drivers of
both vehicles were equally negligent,
responsible for accident and decided issue
no.1 in favour of claimant, whereas issue
nos.2 to 4 were decided in favour of
opposite parties - (Para 2, 3, 6, 8)

Civil law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Claims Tribunal erred in deciding issue of
contributory negligence ignoring fact that
it was case of composite negligence -
Claimant can claim compensation either
from one vehicle or from both vehicles in
view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Khenyei (infra) - Since claim
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition was filed claiming compensation
from owner and insurer of truck, Claims
Tribunal
erred
in
deducting
50%
compensation on account of contributory
negligence of driver of Maruti Van - Award
was modified, compensation awarded was
enhanced
from
Rs.1,08,875/-
to
Rs.23,69,971/- - Claimant was entitled for
6% interest on enhanced amount from
date of award - (Para 17, 24)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Km. Cheenu Vs. Bishambhar Singh & Anr.
613
18. As far as the reliance placed
by Sri Sharma on the judgment of this
Court dated 10.05.2023 passed in Second
Appeal No.318 of 2023 (M/s Chaudhary
Properties & 2 others vs. Laxmi Devi), the
facts of the said case were entirely
different. In that case, a colony was
developed by the appellants, who were
colloniers/ builders and an advertisement
was issued for allotment of plots. Pursuant
to
the
advertisement,
the
plaintiffrespondent had applied for allotment and
deposited certain amount of money.
Pursuant to deposit of money, when a
request to execute the sale deed was made
in
the
light
of
some
letter
dated
30.12.2008 issued by the appellants
therein, a registered letter was sent by the
plaintiff to the builder to execute a
registered sale deed and then suit for
mandatory injunction was filed. Another
relief claimed through amendment was as
regards
cancellation
of
letter
dated
07.10.2011. The facts of the instant case
are entirely different, inasmuch as except
an alleged oral understanding between the
appellant and the father of the respondent
no.2, there is no written contract or even
any other document by which it can be
inferred that the property was agreed to be
sold by the father of the respondent no.2,
except certain photostat copies of the bank
drafts on which some notings were made.

19. Without
expressing
any
opinion as regards oral and documentary
evidence to be led in the original suit or its
maintainability,
at
this
stage,
while
analysing the claim for injunction based
upon a plea under Section 53-A of Transfer
of Property Act and in absence of any
written
or
registered
or
unregistered
agreement for sale, this Court is not
inclined to accept the appellant's claim for
injunction.
20. In view of the above, this
Court does not find any error in the order
impugned.

21. The appeal fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 613
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 3075 of 2007

Km. Cheenu ...Appellant
Versus
Bishambhar Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Pankaj Rai

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections
166
-
Enhancement
of
compensation
- Claimant
- appellant
received grievous injuries in accident and
became permanent disable to extent of
75% - FIR lodged against truck driver u/s
279, 338, 304A I.P.C. - Claim petition was
filed
-
The
Claims
Tribunal
after
considering evidence found that drivers of
both vehicles were equally negligent,
responsible for accident and decided issue
no.1 in favour of claimant, whereas issue
nos.2 to 4 were decided in favour of
opposite parties - (Para 2, 3, 6, 8)

Civil law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Claims Tribunal erred in deciding issue of
contributory negligence ignoring fact that
it was case of composite negligence -
Claimant can claim compensation either
from one vehicle or from both vehicles in
view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Khenyei (infra) - Since claim
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition was filed claiming compensation
from owner and insurer of truck, Claims
Tribunal
erred
in
deducting
50%
compensation on account of contributory
negligence of driver of Maruti Van - Award
was modified, compensation awarded was
enhanced
from
Rs.1,08,875/-
to
Rs.23,69,971/- - Claimant was entitled for
6% interest on enhanced amount from
date of award - (Para 17, 24)
Appeal partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.&
ors. reported in 2015(2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.), (Para
12)

2. Laxmi Devi & ors.Vs Mohammad Tabbar &
anr. reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.)

3. Jagdish Vs Mohan reported in 2018(2) TAC 14

4. Master Ayush Vs The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.& anr., Civil
Appeal Nos. 2205-2206 of 2022 (Arising out of
SLP (Civil) Nos. 7238-39 of 2021),
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. This first appeal from order has
been filed on behalf of claimant-appellant
for enhancement of compensation against
the judgment and award dated 8.8.2007
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.8, Bulandshahar in M.A.C.P. No.61 of
2006 (Km. Cheenu minor through her
mother Smt. Rubi Vs. Bishambhar Singh
and another) by which compensation of
Rs.1,08,875/- along with 6% interest has
been awarded in favour of claimantappellant on account of injuries received by
her.

2. The brief facts of the case are
that on fateful day 22.8.2005 the claimantappellant was returning from Agra to
Bulandshahar by Maruti Van bearing
no.RJ-01-C-8496 along with her other
family members and at about 12 noon when
they reached near Village Gijrauli, District
Hathras, the offending truck bearing
no.MP-6-E-5318 which was coming from
opposite direction hit the Maruti Van. The
offending truck was being driven by its
driver very rashly and negligently. The
claimant-appellant had received grievous
injuries in the accident and has become
permanent disable. The first information
report was lodged against truck driver in
Police Station Kotwali, Hathras, which was
registered as Case Crime No.263 of 2005,
under Sections 279, 338, 304A I.P.C.

3. The claim petition was filed on
behalf
of
claimant-appellant
(minor)
through her mother under Sections 166 and
168 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.36,05,000/-. The claim
petition was registered as M.A.C.P. No.61
of 2006. As per claim petition, the claimant
had received grievous injuries in the
accident and had become permanent
disable to the extent of 75%. The age of
claimant was only 2 years at the time of
accident.

4. The opposite party/respondent
no.1, who is owner of truck has appeared
before the Claims Tribunal and filed his
written
statement
denying
the
claim
allegation. It was pleaded that the truck in
question was insured from 15.10.2004 to
14.10.2005. It was also pleaded that
registration
certificate,
insurance
and
permit of truck as well as driving licence of
truck driver was valid and effective on the
date of accident.

5. The opposite party/respondent
no.2 the Oriental Insurance Company
Limited has also filed its written statement
10 All. Km. Cheenu Vs. Bishambhar Singh & Anr.
615
denying the claim allegation but it was
admitted that truck was insured for third
party
for
the
period
15.10.2004
to
14.10.2005. It was pleaded that the accident
was occurred on account of negligence of
drivers of both the vehicles. It was also
pleaded that the owner, driver and insurer
of Maruti Van were necessary parties but
were not impleaded in the claim petition
and the claim petition is defective for nonjoinder of necessary parties.

6. The Claims Tribunal had framed
five issues for determination as rash and
negligent
driving
of
truck
driver,
contributory negligence of drivers of truck
as well as Maruti Van, validity of driving
licence of both the drivers, non-joinder of
necessary party and lastly relief as well as
liability for payment of compensation.

7. The claimant had produced Rubi
Goel, who is mother of claimant as P.W.-1
and had also produced documentary
evidence to prove her case. The opposite
parties have not adduced any oral evidence
and
opposite
party
no.1
had
filed
documentary evidence in support of his
defence.

8. The Claims Tribunal after
considering the evidence and materials
adduced by the parties, had recorded the
finding while deciding issue nos.1, 2, 3 and
4 that drivers of both the vehicles were
equally negligent and responsible for the
accident. The Claims Tribunal has recorded
the finding that there was contributory
negligence on the part of both the drivers to
the extent of 50-50%. The Claims Tribunal
has further recorded the finding that driver
of truck was having valid and effective
driving licence to driver the truck, whereas
the driver of Maruti Van was not having
valid driving licence. The Claims Tribunal
has also recorded the finding that there is
no evidence to establish that Maruti Van
was insured on the date of accident. The
owner of Maruti Van was necessary party,
but was not impleaded by the claimant and
the claim petition is defective for nonjoinder of necessary party. The Claims
Tribunal has decided issue no.1 in favour of
claimant, whereas issue nos.2, 3 and 4 were
decided in favour of opposite parties.

9. The Claims Tribunal while
deciding the issue no.5 has recorded the
finding that the claimant had received
grievous injuries in the accident and has
become permanent disable on account of
injuries received by her. The Claims
Tribunal has further recorded that as per
disability
certificate
which
is
Paper
No.18C-2 issued by office of Chief
Medical Officer, the disability of claimant
was 75%. The opposite parties had not
disputed the genuineness of disability
certificate and it has been held that the
claimant has become permanent disable to
the extent of 75%. The Claims Tribunal has
further recorded that since the claimant is
aged about 2 years having no income, the
income is accepted as Rs.15,000/- per
annum as provided in 2nd Schedule of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Claims
Tribunal
while
calculating
the
compensation has applied the multiplier of
15. The Claims Tribunal while considering
the medical expenses has recorded the
finding that as per list of document Paper
No.53C1
the
claimant
has
filed
bills/vouchers of Rs.47,628/- and through
list
of
documents
Paper
No.33C-1
bills/vouchers of Rs.94,343/-, but had
awarded only Rs.15,000/- for medical
expenses as provided in Second Schedule
of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The Claims Tribunal has further
awarded Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pain,
Rs.20,000/-
for
helping
hand,
Rs.5,000/- for special diet and Rs.4,000/-
for transportation and total compensation
was assessed as Rs.2,17,715/-. The Claims
Tribunal after deducting 50% compensation
on account of contributory negligence of
driver
of
Maruti
Van
has
awarded
Rs.1,08,875/- against the insurer of truck.
The Claims Tribunal has recorded the
finding that the claimant is entitle to
receive remaining 50% from owner and
insurer of Maruti Van but since they were
not impleaded as party in the claim
petition, no direction can be issued for
payment
against
them.
The
total
compensation of Rs.1,08,875/- along with
6% interest has been awarded in favour of
claimant-appellant.
10. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel
for claimant-appellant, Sri Pankaj Rai,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.2 Insurance Company and
perused the record. No one is present on
behalf of respondent no.1, who is owner of
truck.

11. It is submitted by learned
counsel for claimant-appellant that a very
meagre amount of compensation has been
awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour
of claimant-appellant. The accident was
occurred on account of sole negligence of
driver of truck and there was no negligence
on the part of driver of Maruti Van and the
Claims Tribunal has erred in holding
negligence of both the drivers. The F.I.R.
was lodged by one Ghanshyam, who was
travelling in Maruti Van and was an eye
witness of the accident against the driver of
truck. The Investigating Officer after due
investigation has also submitted chargesheet against truck driver which proves the
rash and negligent driving of truck driver.
The claimant has produced Smt. Rubi as
P.W.-1, who was also travelling in Maruti
Van and was an eye witness of the accident.
She has stated on oath before the Claims
Tribunal that accident was occurred on
account of sole negligence of truck driver
and this witness was not cross examined by
the opposite parties on the issue of
negligence and as such the statement of
P.W.-1 was uncontroverted. The Claims
Tribunal has recorded perverse finding of
fact regarding negligence of driver of both
the vehicles, in absence of any evidence of
contributory negligence.

12. It is further submitted that even
otherwise the claimant was travelling in
Maruti Van and there was no contribution
of claimant towards accident and in any
case it was a case of composite negligence
and it is open to the claimant to claim
compensation either from one vehicle or
from both the vehicles. He placed reliance
on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court
in the case Khenyei vs. New India
Assurance Company Limited and others
reported in 2015(2) T.A.C. 677(S.C.) that in
case of composite negligence, it is open for
the claimant to claim compensation either
from the owner/driver and insurer of both
the vehicles or from any one of them.
Relevant paragraph 12 is quoted herein
below:-

"12. A Full Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya & Ors. v.
M.P. State Road Transport Corpn.
& Anr. [2005 (1) MPLJ 372] has
also laid down that in case of
composite negligence, the liability
is joint and several and it is open to
implead the driver, owner and the
insurer one of the vehicles to
recover the whole amount from one
of the joint tort feasors. As to
apportionment also, it has been
10 All. Km. Cheenu Vs. Bishambhar Singh & Anr.
617
observed that both the vehicles will
be jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation. Once the
negligence and compensation is
determined, it is not permissible to
apportion
the
compensation
between the two as it is difficult to
determine the apportionment in the
absence of the drivers of both the
vehicles appearing in the witness
box. Therefore, there cannot be
apportionment of the claim between
the joint tort feasors. The relevant
portion of decision of Full Bench is
extracted hereunder :
"When injury is caused as
a result of negligence of two joint
tort-feasors,
claimant
is
not
required to lay his finger on the
exact
person
regarding
his
proportion of liability. In the
absence of any evidence enabling
the Court to distinguish the act of
each joint tort-feasor, liability can
be fastened on both the tort-feasors
jointly and in case only one of the
joint tort-feasors is impleaded as
party, then entire liability can be
fastened upon one of the joint tortfeasors. If both the joint tortfeasors are before the Court and
there
is
sufficient
evidence
regarding the act of each tortfeasors and it is possible for the
Court to apportion the claim
considering the exact nature of
negligence by both the joint tortfeasors, it may apportion the claim.
However, it is not necessary to
apportion the claim when it is not
possible to determine the ratio of
negligence of joint tort-feasors. In
such cases, joint tort-feasors will
be jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation.
On the same principle, in
the case of joint tort- feasors where
the liability is joint and several, it
is the choice of the claimant to
claim damages from the owner and
driver and insurer of both the
vehicles or any one of them. If
claim is made against one of them,
entire amount of compensation on
account of injury or death can be
imposed against the owner, driver
and insurer of that vehicle as their
liability is joint and several and the
claimant can recover the amount
from any one of them. There can
not be apportionment of claim of
each tort- feasors in the absence of
proper and cogent evidence on
record and it is not necessary to
apportion the claim.
To sum up, we hold as
under:-
(i)
Owner,
driver
and
insurer of one of the vehicles can
be sued and it is not necessary to
sue owner, driver and insurer of
both the vehicles.
Claimant may implead the
owner, driver and insurer of both
the vehicles or anyone of them.
(ii) There can not be
apportionment of the liability of
joint tort-feasors. In case both the
joint tort-feasors are impleaded as
party and if there is sufficient
material
on
record,
then
the
question of apportionment can be
considered by the Claims Tribunal.
However, on general principles of
Jaw, there is no necessity to
apportion the inter se liability of
joint tort- feasors.
Reference
is
answered
accordingly. Appeal be placed
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before
appropriate
Bench
for
hearing."

13. It is further submitted that the
accident was occurred in the year 2005 and
the Claims Tribunal has erred in accepting
notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum
whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Laxmi Devi & others vs.
Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in
2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.), has accepted
notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month
(Rs.36,000/- per annum) for the accident
which occurred in the year 2004. It is
further submitted that the parents of the
claimant had spent more than Rs.3,00,000/-
in her medical treatment and bills/vouchers
of about Rs.1,50,000/- has already been
produced before the Claims Tribunal which
were not disputed by the opposite parties
and the Claims Tribunal has erred in
awarding only Rs.15,000/- towards medical
expenses.

14. Lastly, it is submitted that the
claimant has become permanent disable to
the extent of 75% and she is still under the
medical treatment and the parents of
claimant-appellant had spent a very huge
amount even after the judgment of Claims
Tribunal. The claimant-appellant had filed
bills/vouchers and other documents related to
her treatment before this Court as an additional
evidence through application filed under Order
41 Rule 27 C.P.C. This Court vide order dated
6.4.2017 directed the Claims Tribunal to verify
the documents related to medical expenses
annexed with application filed under Order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C. dated 9.12.2013 as additional
evidence. The Claims Tribunal had verified the
medical bills of Rs.4,42,000/- vide its report
dated 7.9.2019. The Claims Tribunal has
awarded a very less amount of Rs.20,000/- for
attendant whereas on account of injuries she
could not perform her daily routine works
without attendant. One attendant was engaged
by parents of claimant on payment of
Rs.2,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal had
also erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- for
physical and mental pain, Rs.5,000/- for special
died and Rs.4,000/- for transportation. The
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
is inappropriate looking the age and nature of
injuries of claimant-appellant.

15. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Rai,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent
no.2
the
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited
has
submitted
that
admittedly it was a case of head on collision in
between the insured truck and Maruti Van and
the Claims Tribunal after considering the entire
evidence and materials which are available on
record has rightly recorded the finding that both
the drivers were rash and negligent and were
responsible for the accident to the extent of 5050%. It is further submitted that the claimantappellant was aged about 2 years at the time of
accident having no income. The Claims
Tribunal has rightly accepted Rs.15,000/- per
annum as notional income, provided in IInd
Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The
medical expenses was also rightly awarded as
per provisions of IInd Schedule which was
inserted in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the year
1994. Lastly, it is submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
is almost just and proper and there is no
illegality in any manner. No ground for
enhancement is made out. The appeal filed by
claimant-appellant has no force and is liable to
be dismissed with costs.

16. Considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

17. It is admitted fact that the
claimant aged about 2 years along with her
family members was travelling in Maruti
10 All. Km. Cheenu Vs. Bishambhar Singh & Anr.
619
Van and it was a case of composite
negligence. The Claims Tribunal has erred
in deciding the issue of contributory
negligence ignoring the fact that it was a
case of composite negligence and it is open
to the claimant to claim compensation
either from one vehicle or from both the
vehicles in view of law laid down by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Khenyei (supra). Since the claim petition
was filed claiming compensation from the
owner and insurer of truck, the Claims
Tribunal had erred in deducting 50%
compensation on account of contributory
negligence of driver of Maruti Van.

18. The Claims Tribunal has also
erred in accepting notional income of
Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided in IInd
Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
which was inserted in the year 1994,
whereas in the present case the accident
occurred on 22.8.2005 and as such the
notional income of claimant is accepted as
Rs.3,000/- per month as provided by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Laxmi Devi (supra) for the accident
occurred in the year 2004. The Claims
Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards future prospects whereas the
claimant-appellant is also entitled for 40%
future prospects in view of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jagdish vs. Mohan reported in 2018(2)
TAC 14.

19. The Claims Tribunal has also
erred in accepting 75% loss of earning
capacity relying on the disability certificate
which discloses 75% disability to the
claimant, whereas as per the evidence
adduced by claimant before the Claims
Tribunal,
the
claimant-appellant
has
become permanent disable to the extent of
100%. Loss of income is accepted 100%.
20. So far as medical expenses are
concerned, the claimant had fully proved
her
medical
expenses
by
producing
bills/vouchers
of
Rs.47,628/-
and
Rs.94,343/- before the Claims Tribunal and
the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding
only Rs.15,000/- for medical expenses. The
claimant-appellant
is
entitled
for
Rs.1,41,971/- towards medical expenses
occurred till the award passed by the
Claims Tribunal. The claimant-appellant
has also filed several documents related to
the treatment and medical expenses of
claimant-appellant
amounting
to
Rs.4,42,000/- through application filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. dated
9.12.2013. This Court vide order dated
6.4.2017 sent the documents annexed with
application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.
to the concerned Claims Tribunal for
verification of said documents. The Claims
Tribunal has registered miscellaneous case
as Misc. Case No.1631 of 2017. The
Claims Tribunal after affording opportunity
of hearing to the parties had verified the
bills and vouchers filed on behalf of
claimant-appellant as additional evidence
and submitted its report to this Court by
letter dated 7.9.2019. The medical expenses
occurred after the judgment and award of
Claims
Tribunal
dated
8.8.2007
till
9.12.2013 (filing application under Order
41
Rule
27
C.P.C.)
amounting
to
Rs.4,42,000/- were duly verified by the
concerned Claims Tribunal. The respondent
Insurance Company has not disputed the
fact that aforesaid amount has not been
incurred in the medical treatment of
claimant-appellant. The claimant-appellant
is entitled for medical expenses occurred in
her treatment. The medical treatment of the
claimant-appellant is still going on as she is
disable to the extent of 100%. Nothing has
been awarded towards future medical
expenses. The claimant-appellant is also
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entitle for Rs.3,00,000/- towards future
medical expenses looking the nature of
injuries.

21. The Claims Tribunal had also
failed to consider that on account of 100%
disability
the
marriage
prospects
of
claimant-appellant
was
substantially
damaged and the claimant-appellant is
subjected to frustration, disappointment,
discomfort and inconvenience but nothing
has been awarded in the aforesaid account to
the claimant-appellant. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Master Ayush Vs. The
Branch
Manager,
Reliance
General
Insurance Company Limited and another
passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2205-2206 of
2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7238-39
of 2021), has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of
marriage prospects. The claimant-appellant is
also entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of
marriage prospects. The Claims Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.20,000/- towards helping
hand ignoring the fact that at the time of
accident she was only 2 years old and was
100% disabled. The attendant charges payable
to the appellant is assessed as Rs.2,000/- X 12
X 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-.

22. The Claims Tribunal has also
erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- for pain and
suffering. The claimant-appellant is entitled for
Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering. The Claims
Tribunal has also erred in awarding only
Rs.4,000/- for transportation and Rs.5,000/-
for special diet which is also unreasonable and
is without any basis looking the nature of
injuries as well as disability of the claimantappellant. The claimant-appellant is entitled
for
Rs.20,000/-
for
transportation
and
Rs.20,000/- for special diet.

23.

In
view
of
aforesaid
discussion, the quantum of compensation is
reassessed as under:-
1) Monthly income = Rs.3,000/-
2) Annual income = Rs.3,000/- X
12 = Rs.36,000/-
3) Future prospects (40%) =
Rs.14,400/-
4)
Total
annual
income
=
Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- =Rs.50,400/-
5) Multiplier applicable (15) =
Rs.50,400/- x 15 = Rs.7,56,000/-
6) Medical expenses
(i) Till award of Claims Tribunal
dated 8.8.2007 = Rs.1,41,971/-
(ii) From 8.8.2007 till 9.12.2013
(additional evidence filed before
this Court) = Rs.4,42,000/-
7) Future medical expenses =
Rs.3,00,000/-
8)
Attendant
charges
=
Rs.3,60,000/-
9) Loss of marriage prospects =
Rs.3,00,000/-
10)
Pain
and
suffering
=
Rs.30,000/-
11) Transportation = Rs.20,000/-
12) Special diet = Rs.20,000/-
Total
=
Rs.7,56,000/-
+
Rs.1,41,971/-
+
Rs.4,42,000/-
+
Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.3,60,000/- +
Rs.3,00,000/-
+
Rs.30,000/-
+
Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/-
= Rs. 23,69,971/-

24. In view of above, the appeal
filed by appellant is hereby partly allowed
and award of the Claims Tribunal is
modified and compensation awarded by the
Claims
Tribunal
is
enhanced
from
Rs.1,08,875/-
to
Rs.23,69,971/-.
The
claimant is also entitled for 6% interest on
enhanced amount from the date of award of
Claims Tribunal dated 8.8.2007.

25. The respondent no.2 Oriental
Insurance Company Limited is directed to
pay enhanced amount along with interest
10 All. Ambika Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
621
within two months from today to the
claimant-appellant,
failing
which
respondent Insurance Company is liable to
pay interest at the rate of 10% on enhanced
amount.

26. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 621
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1050 of 2024
Connected with PIL Nos. 1238 of 2024, 1438 of
2024, 1573 of 2024,
1576 of 2024, 2250 of 2023, 1924 of 2024 and
1977 of 2024

Ambika Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S/Sri Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, Madan Mohan
Srivastava, Ram Bahadur Singh, Suneel Kumar
Mishra,
Vijay
Kumar,
Kunwar
Bahadur
Srivastava, Janardan Shukla, Udai Shankar
Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S/Sri Manish Goyal, Addl. Advocate General
assisted by J.N. Maurya, C.S.C. and Ravi Anand
Agarwal,
Rajesh
Kumar
Tripathi,
S.C.,
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Hari Narayan Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, A.K. Pandey, Pankaj
Kumar Gupta, Arun Kumar Pandey, Sudhir Bharti
& Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

A. Local Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 77 - Construction of water tank -
Bar u/s 77, how far relevant - Resolution
passed by the Gaon Sabha to use small
part
of
land
for
the
purpose
of
construction of water tank or RCC Centre,
out of the land marked for the purpose of
Charagaah, Naveen Parti, Khalihaan etc. -
Permissibility - Held, bar of Section 77 of
U.P. Revenue Code would not come in the
way, except if it is shown that there is
mala fide, which is not the case in present
PILs. - High Court found no merit in
challenge of the construction of water
tank and RCC Centre. (Para 21 and 27)

PIL disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gaon Sabha Vs St. of U.P. & ors..;
2023:AHC:224233

2. Basdev Vs St. of U.P. & ors..; 2023(161) RD
467

3. Saddam Hussain Vs St. of U.P. & ors..; 2024
SCC OnLine All 596

4. Writ Petition No. 35251 of 2017; V. Deevana,
Nizamabad & ors.. Vs Prl Secy, Municipal Admn.
& ors.. decided by Telangana High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. This bunch of public interest
litigations are filed by few villagers of
concerned
village
mainly
opposing
construction of water tank and in one case
construction of RCC Centre, on the land
reserved
in
concerned
village
for
Charagaah,
Gadahi,
Naveen
Parti,
Khalihaan or other public purposes.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners
mainly argued that if a land is reserved for
a particular purpose (such as Charagaah,
Khalihaan etc.), nature of same cannot be
changed
except
in
exceptional
circumstances by due prescribed process,
however, due process has not been
followed in the present cases and only on
basis
of
resolution of
Gram
Sabha
concerned, permission for construction was
granted.