# Lalti Devi & Ors v. Jagdish Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 762
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 302 of 1996
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalti-devi-ors-v-jagdish-kumar-ors-50575
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation- The deceased was 41
years of age and was working as a
vaccinator
in
P.H.C
-his
income
is
considered to be Rs. 2000/- p.m to which
as the deceased was in the age bracket of
40 to 50 years, 30% as future loss of
income requires to be added in view of the
Pranay Sethi Case- As far as amount
under the head of non-pecuniary damages
are concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/-,
granted multiplier of 14-The tribunal
erroneously deducted the amount of
family pension and amount receivable as
salary to the widow-These findings are
against the mandate of the Apex CourtAmount of Rs. 32,000/- be deducted and
interest
be
recounted
on
enhanced
amount-The interest on Rs. 32,000/-
would remain unaltered-As far as issue of
rate of interest is concerned, it would be
reduced to 9% from 12% , hence on the
8 All. Lalti Devi & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Kumar & Ors.
763
enhanced amount rate of interest would
be 6% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till decision of the claim petition
and 3% thereafter- Tribunal shall follow
the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj Allianz Case as the purpose of
keeping compensation is to safeguard the
interest of the claimants-No amount shall
be kept in fixed deposit as the accident is
of the year 1991.(Para 1 to 15)

The appeal is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 has vehemently
argued that the respondent nos. 1 to 3
settled the claim with the Insurance
Company in the Appeal filed by them and
the settlement has already been given effect
to and now the Appellants herein may not
be entitled to any further compensation. In
the opinion of the Court the above
submission does not merit consideration in
as much as the present appellants were not
party to the settlement arrived at with the
Insurance Company and the decision
rendered in the FAFO (D) No. 290 of 2014
dated 03.10.2021 shall not bind the present
appellants. Ideally both the Appeals ought
to have been decided/ settled together. This
having not been done the present Appeal
has been considered on its own merits.
Since this Court has upheld the 10%
apportionment of the impugned award
dated 17.08.2013 in favour of the Appellant
no. 2, the Appellant having already
received a sum of Rs.5,28,033/- (being
10% of the award) and Rs.2,62,500/- (on
account of the enhancement in the
compensation in FAFO (D) No. 290 of
2014), the appellant No. 2 shall stand
entitled to Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss
of filial consortium only. The appellant no.
1 shall stand entitled to a sum of Rs.
40,000/- on account of loss of filial
consortium. All payments to the appellants
shall carry an interest of 6% per annum
from the date of the claim petition till the
date of actual payment/realization. The 5th
respondent/
Insurer/
ICICI
Lombard
General
Insurance
Company
through
Branch Manager Parsvanath Plaza Court
Road, Saharanpur (Insurer of Truck No.
RJ-11GA-2075) shall satisfy the additional
compensation granted in this Appeal
together with interest, within a period of
two months from the date of service of
certified copy of this judgment.

26. The Appeal is partly allowed to
the extent above. The impugned award
shall stand modified accordingly. No order
as to costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 762
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal from Order No. 302 of 1996

Lalti Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Sri Rajendra Tiwari,
Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation- The deceased was 41
years of age and was working as a
vaccinator
in
P.H.C
-his
income
is
considered to be Rs. 2000/- p.m to which
as the deceased was in the age bracket of
40 to 50 years, 30% as future loss of
income requires to be added in view of the
Pranay Sethi Case- As far as amount
under the head of non-pecuniary damages
are concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/-,
granted multiplier of 14-The tribunal
erroneously deducted the amount of
family pension and amount receivable as
salary to the widow-These findings are
against the mandate of the Apex CourtAmount of Rs. 32,000/- be deducted and
interest
be
recounted
on
enhanced
amount-The interest on Rs. 32,000/-
would remain unaltered-As far as issue of
rate of interest is concerned, it would be
reduced to 9% from 12% , hence on the
8 All. Lalti Devi & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Kumar & Ors.
763
enhanced amount rate of interest would
be 6% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till decision of the claim petition
and 3% thereafter- Tribunal shall follow
the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj Allianz Case as the purpose of
keeping compensation is to safeguard the
interest of the claimants-No amount shall
be kept in fixed deposit as the accident is
of the year 1991.(Para 1 to 15)

The appeal is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Ins. Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 105

2. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
(2013) 7 SCC 476

3. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC
442

4. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Ins. Co. Ltd. (2007) 2 GLH 291

5. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr..
FAFO No.23 of 2001

6. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI &
ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondent-insurance company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 7.3.1996 passed by M.A.C.T,
Varanasi
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Tribunal") in M.A.C. Case No. 105 of
1992.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 14.12.1991 Ram Lakhan
Ram alongwith Harvinder Singh was going
towards Rohania market. At about 5 p.m
when he reached near the curve of G.T
Road near Jagatpur, vehicle no. UMG 9121
DCM Toyota being driven rashly and
negligently by its driver coming from the
side of Allahabad and going towards
Varanasi reached there and dahed Ram
Lakhan Ram, who sustained injuries on his
person and was taken to S.S.P.G. Hospital,
Varanasi and then shifted to S.S.L.
Hospital, B.H.U, Varanasi and succumbed
to his injuries on 29.12.1991.

4. The deceased Ram Lakhan Ram
was 41 years of age and was working as a
vaccinator in P.H.C Chiraigaon, Varanasi
earning Rs. 2000/- p.m. who has left behind
him his wife, three sons and two daughters.
The tribunal for an accident in the year
1991 despite the judgments of the Apex
Court even in those days namely in the
year1996 deducted the amount granted
towards pension and other death benefits
and held that as widow was granted
compassionate appointment the salary
cannot
be
considered
for
grant
of
compensation and granted only a meager
amount of Rs. 32,000/- with 12% interest.

5. The deceased was 41 years of age,
his income is considered to be Rs. 2000/-
p.m to which as the deceased was in the
age bracket of 40 to 50 years, 30% as
future loss of income requires to be added
in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 105. As far as amount under
the head of non-pecuniary damages are
concerned, it should be Rs.70,000/-,
granted multiplier of 14. The tribunal
erroneously deducted the amount of family
pension and amount receivable as salary to
the widow. These findings are against the
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandate of the Apex Court. The judgment
of Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar & Ors
Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors, 2013 7 SCC 476
would apply to the facts of this case.

6. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income : Rs.2000/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 30% namely Rs.600/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 2000 + 600 =
Rs. 2600/-

iv. Deduction of 1/3rd= Rs. 867/-
(rounded up)

v. Income after deduction of 1/3rd :
Rs. 1733/-

vi. Annual loss : Rs. 1733 x 12 = Rs.
20,796/-

vii. Multiplier applicable : 14

vii. Total loss : Rs. 20,796 x 14 = Rs.
2,91,144/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : Rs.70,000/- + Rs. 30,000/-

ix. Total compensation : Rs. 3,91,144/-
(rounded upto Rs. 4,00,000/-)

7. Amount of Rs. 32,000/- be deducted
and interest be recounted on enhanced
amount. The interest on Rs. 32,000/- would
remain unaltered. As far as issue of rate of
interest is concerned, it would be reduced to
9% from 12% as per the oral submission of
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, hence on the
enhanced amount rate of interest would be
6% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till decision of the claim petition and
3% thereafter. This is just compensation
offered by the respondents which means Rs.
3,70, 000/- with interest is decided by and
between the parties.

8. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

9. 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-Insurance
Company shall deposit the additional
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest as directed above.

10. 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 Vs. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers.

11. 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.
8 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Vs. Chandra Bhan Sahu & Anr.
765

12. 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.

13. 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. No amount shall be
kept in fixed deposit as the accident is of the
year 1991.

14. Record be sent back to the
tribunal.

15.This Court is thankful to both the
learned counsels for getting this old appeal
disposed of.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 765
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal from Order (Defective) No. 430 of
2008

U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Chandra Bhan Sahu & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Nripendra Mishra, Sri Deo Dayal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kamal Mehrotra

Civil
Law-Motor
Vehicle
Act,
1988Sections 173 -Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section
5
-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation-challenged the sum of Rs.
50,000/- awarded as compensation after
delay of 333 days-such delay is not
explained properly-The matter has once
dismissed under Chapter 12 Rule 4 in not
taking steps to serve the other side, this
dismissal was in year 2023 after about 14
years of not taking steps- The issue of
contributory
negligence
cannot
be
interfered as the accident took place in
the morning at the by-pass and the
injured was not at all liable for the
accident it was the driver of the bus who
has been considered to be negligent by
tribunal- it is solemn duty of the owner of
the vehicle to produce the licence of its
driver to show that the driver was a
qualified driver, no doubt the vehicle was
insured and the accident occurred during
this period that will not shift the burden-
It is the prima facie duty of owner to
discharge the burden by holding valid
licence of driver which is not done in this
case- this appeal both on question of
delay and on question of merits is
dismissed.(Para 1 to 17)
There is no presumption that delay in
approaching
the
court
is
always
deliberate.
No
person
gains
from
deliberate delaying a matter by not
resorting to take appropriate legal remedy
within time but then the words "sufficient
cause" show that delay, if any, occurred,
should not be deliberate, negligent and
due to casual approach of concerned
litigant, but, it should be bona fide, and,
for the reasons beyond his control, and, in
any case should not lack bona fide. If the
explanation does not smack of lack of
bona fide, the Court should show due
consideration to the suiter, but, when
there is apparent casual approach on the
part of suiter, the approach of Court is
also bound to change. Lapse on the part of
litigant in approaching Court within time