# Mosaheb Ali v. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 860
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3227 of 2017
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mosaheb-ali-v-general-manager-u-p-s-r-t-c-anr-49198
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section - 168 - Constitution of India,
Article
21,
-
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunity, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Appeal -
against award - quantum of compensation -
appellant sustained injuries in an accident
caused by the rash and negligent driving of
UPSRTC bus - tribunal partly allowed claim of
claimant-appellant
for
compensation
on
account of disability suffered by him -
assessment of damages and determining
compensation - in the light of judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Pappu Deo
Yadav's,
Kajal's,
Nirmala
Devi's,
R.D.
Hattangadi's, Raj Kumar's, K. Suresh's & Sarla
Verma's - impugned award is modified from
Rs. 1,52,067/- to Rs. 9,01,560/- with 7 %
interest - directions issued - Appeal allowed.
(Para - 16, 18, 20, 39, 40)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
1 All. Mohaseb Ali Vs. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
861

## Text

860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3.
Future Prospects (C)
20% of 5,34,384/-
= 1,06,876.80
4.
Annual Income + Future
Prospects
(B+C=D)
5,34,384 + 1,06,876.80
= 641,260.80
5.
Deduction
towards
personal expenses (E)
(1/3 of D)
1/3 of 641,260.80
= 213753.60-
6.
Annual
Loss
of
dependancy (F)
(D-E = F)
641,260.80-213753.60
= 4,27,507.20/-
7.
Multiplier (G)
9
8.
Total
loss
of
dependancy
(F x G)

4,27,507.20/- x 9
= 38,47,563/-
9.
Conventional Heads:
(a) Loss of consortium
(b) Loss of Estate
(c) Funeral Expenses
70,000/-
10.
Total compensation
39,17,563/-
11.
Interest
7%

VIII. Conclusion & Directions:

23. In view of the above, the appeal
filed by the Insurance Company viz. First
Appeal From Order No. - 2385 of 2017 is
dismissed.

24. The appeal filed by the claimant
viz. First Appeal From Order No.- 3211 of
2017 is partly allowed.

25. The amount of compensation to
which the claimants have been awarded
shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company within a period of three months
before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the
learned tribunal shall release the amount to
the claimants without delay. The amount
already disbursed to the claimants (if any)
shall be adjusted.

26. The amount deposited by the
Insurance Company before this Court shall
be transmitted to the learned trial court
which shall release the same in favour of
the claimants as part of the compensation
determined in this appeal.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 860
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3227 of 2017

Mosaheb Ali ...Appellant
Versus
General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Brij Raj Singh. Sri Ajay Shyam Prajapati,
Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anirudh Kumar Misra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section - 168 - Constitution of India,
Article
21,
-
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunity, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Appeal -
against award - quantum of compensation -
appellant sustained injuries in an accident
caused by the rash and negligent driving of
UPSRTC bus - tribunal partly allowed claim of
claimant-appellant
for
compensation
on
account of disability suffered by him -
assessment of damages and determining
compensation - in the light of judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Pappu Deo
Yadav's,
Kajal's,
Nirmala
Devi's,
R.D.
Hattangadi's, Raj Kumar's, K. Suresh's & Sarla
Verma's - impugned award is modified from
Rs. 1,52,067/- to Rs. 9,01,560/- with 7 %
interest - directions issued - Appeal allowed.
(Para - 16, 18, 20, 39, 40)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
1 All. Mohaseb Ali Vs. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
861
1. Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar & ors.,
AIR 2020 SCC 4424,

2. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand & ors., (2020) 4 SCC
413,

3. Ward Vs James, 1965 (1) All ER 563,

4. M/S Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Nirmala Devi & ors., 1980 ACJ 55 SC,

5. R. D. Hattangadi Vs Pest Control (India) Pvt.
Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551,

6. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & ors., 2011 (1)
SCC 343,

7. K. Suresh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
ors., 2012 (12) SCC 274,

8. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar
Yadav & anr., FAFO No. 1285 of 2008 decided
on 23.03.2022.

9. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Co. & anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of the
judgement and award made by the
learned
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District
Judge,
Kushinagar1 in Motor Accident Claim
Petition
No.
265
of
2012
dated
29.10.2016 granting compensation to the
injured-claimant by partly allowing his
claim and holdings respondent-UPSRTC
liable to pay the compensation.

2. Briefly the case of the claimantappellant before the learned tribunal was
that the appellant sustained injuries in an
accident which occurred on 29.06.2012
and was caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of UPSRTC bus
bearing Registration No. UP 27/T0235.
The learned tribunal partly allowed the
claim of the claimant-appellant for
compensation on account of disability
suffered by him in the accident.

3. The compensation awarded by the
learned
tribunal
in
the
impugned
judgement
dated
29.10.2016
under
various heads is tabulated hereunder:

Sr.
No.
Heads
Awarded by
tribunal
1.
Monthly Income
35000/-
2.
Annual Income
420,000/-
3.
Treatment
12567/-
4.
Transportation
10,000/-
5.
Future medical expenses
ie. towards purchase of
device
10,000/-
6.
Pain and suffering loss of
amenities
1,00,000/-
7..
Special Diet and misc.
expenditure
10,000/-
8.
Attendant charges
NILL
9.
Multiplier
NILL
10.
Loss of Income (19 days
admitted in hospital)
9,500/-
11.
Total compensation
1,52,067/-
12.
Interest
7%

4. The appeal has been filed by the
claimant-appellant
who
seeks
enhancement of compensation.

5. Shri Ajay Shyam Prajapati, learned
counsel for the appellant contends that the
learned tribunal erred while considering the
extent of the disability on the appellant's
life and awarding paltry and unjust
compensation. He also claims entitlement
to an attendant and seeks enhancement of
the awarded compensation under various
heads.

6. Shri Anirudh Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the UPSRTC submits
that the compensation awarded by the
learned tribunal is lawful and just and
brooks no interference.

7. The undisputed facts borne out by
the evidence and material in the record and
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the findings of the learned tribunal are
these. The accident was caused by rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
offending UPSRTC bus. The appellant
sustained serious injuries in the accident on
29.06.2012 which left him with an
amputated left arm. On the date of the
accident the age of the claimant-appellant
was 43.

8. The disability certificate records
the nature of the disability as "amputation
of left arm below shoulder found". The
disability of 70% of a permanent nature has
been opined by the experts in the disability
certificate.

9. The appellant is a teacher by
profession. The learned tribunal in the
impugned award has found that the loss of
left arm does not reduce his earning
capacity. On this footing the learned
tribunal has held that the appellant is not
entitled to any compensation on account of
loss of earning.

10. The learned tribunal fell into error
by neglecting to consider the impact of the
disability on the appellant's life. His
teaching activities may not be directly
hampered by the aforesaid disability. The
fact remains that for attending to daily
chores of life and other day to day
activities,
the
disability
will
greatly
constrain him. Routine activities of life
hitherto accomplished with ease and
without thought are made burdensome by
the disability. Further, a physical disability
of this nature also inflicts a social
disadvantage. Our society has not been
fully sensitized to the plight of disabled
people. Each day is a stubborn reminder of
robbed personal choices and relegation to a
life of lesser mortals.

11. At the cost of a slight departure
but for the benefit of a holistic view, notice
may be taken of the fact that the plight of
physically handicapped persons across the
world engaged the attention of the global
community with the Proclamation on the
Full Participation and Equality of People
with Disabilities in the Asian and the
Pacific Region, 1992. India was a signatory
to the aforesaid Proclamation.

12. The concern of the global
community was brought on the conscience
of the nation with the promulgation of the
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 19952. (hereinafter
referred to as the Disabilities Act, 1995).

13. The Disabilities Act of 1995
reflects the legislative recognition that
people with physical disabilities face
discrimination and suffer exclusion. The
legislative purpose of the Disabilities Act
of 1995 affirms the national resolve to
purge the stigma attached to disability, and
to ensure full participation in life of persons
with disabilities.

14. The Disabilities Act, 1995 has
been referenced only to underscore the
conditions
of
disabled
persons
and
highlight the consensus of international
instruments, global juridical values as well
as municipal laws to ameliorate their lot.

15. In these dear times, the award of
just compensation by courts to persons with
disabilities provides social security, serves
a similar social purpose, and acts as a
beneficent measure in a welfare State. The
phrase "just compensation" in Section 168
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, discloses
the legislative intent of achieving a welfare
1 All. Mohaseb Ali Vs. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
863
measure through adjudication by courts in
accordance with evolved judicial standards.

16. Body of precedents also relates
compensation
to
constitutional
law
holdings.
Physical
disability
also
undermines the dignity of an individual. In
Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar
and others, award of compensation was
made with the iteration that human dignity
is integral to right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

17.

Given
conducive
social
environment and support system people
with disabilities can achieve soaring
heights and make stellar contribution to the
society. Human spirit has always triumphed
over physical disabilities.

17.1. Helen Keller lost her sight but
not her vision. Despite loss of limbs Douglas
Bader took wing to ''Reach for the Sky4''. A
motor neuron disease wasted Stephen
Hawking's body but did not curb his quest to
speak to the stars; and he pushed human
knowledge to its frontiers. Major HPS
Ahluwalia suffered a battle injury and was
paralysed below the waist. The disability
broke his stride but not his spirit. The injuries
immobilized his limbs but could not inhibit
his dreams. The war hero always set his
sights ''Higher than Everest5''.

18. Legislature and courts alike have
endeavoured to purge social prejudice by
empowering persons with disabilities, and to
create a social environment of acceptance of
disabilities by mainstreaming the said class.
Payment of just compensation in line with
good judicial authority and legal norms is a
part of this exercise.

19. In the facts of this case, without
an attendant normal life for the appellant
will not be possible. The appellant would
need an attendant to perform routine chores
of life like travelling from one place to
another (including his place of work),
lifting of weights and so on. Assistance of
an attendant will enable the injured to
overcome
the
hardship,
reduce
the
inconvenience, and mitigate the discomfort
and mental distress in life caused by the
disability. An attendant will surely pave the
way for appellant's rehabilitation and
integration into the social mainstream, and
enable full participation of the latter in all
aspects of life. In short to lead a dignified
and fuller life.

20. The assessment of personal
damages in personal injury cases is a vexed
question of fact and law. The exercise of
assessing
damages
and
determining
compensation invariably involves educated
guesswork. However, the scope of errors in
such an enquiry can be reduced by
determining
subjective
issues
on
an
objective basis.

21. Recognizing such difficulties, the
Supreme Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish
Chand and others, opined that as under:

"12. The assessment of damages
in personal injury cases raises great
difficulties. It is not easy to convert the
physical and mental loss into monetary
terms. There has to be a measure of
calculated guesswork and conjecture. An
assessment, as best as can, in the
circumstances, should be made."

22. The enquiry of the courts in such
matters can readily profit from the wealth
of judicial authorities. This will not only
reduce the scope of errors but will also
prevent
inconsistencies
in
judicial
pronouncements.
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Lord Denning in Ward Vs.
James
laid
down
the
fundamental
principles which should be observed in
such cases:

"First, assessibility : In cases of
grave injury, where the body is wrecked or
the brain destroyed, it is very difficult to
assess a fair compensation in money, so
difficult that the award must basically be a
conventional figure, derived from experience
or from awards in comparable cases.
Secondly, uniformity : There should be some
measure of uniformity in awards so that
similar decisions are given in similar cases;
otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in
the community, and much criticism of the
administration
of
justice.
Thirdly,
predictability : Parties should be able to
predict with some measure of accuracy the
sum which is likely to be awarded in a
particular case, for by this means cases can be
settled peaceably and not brought to court, a
thing very much to the public good."

24. McGregor's Treatise on Damages,
14th Edn. Para 1157, appositely describes
relevant heads in personal injury actions:

"The person physically injured
may recover both for his pecuniary losses
and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the
pecuniary losses themselves comprise two
separate items viz. the loss of earnings and
other gains which the plaintiff would have
made had he not been injured and the
medical and other expenses to which he is
put as a result of the injury, and the courts
have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses
into
three
categories
viz.
pain
and
suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss
of expectation of life."

25. Attaching court value to life and
limb in M/S Concord of India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, it
was held:

"2. ... the determination of the
quantum must be liberal, not niggardly
since the law values life and limb in a free
country in generous scales."

26. The different heads under which
compensation is liable to be awarded for
personal injury were thus laid down in R.
D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India)
Pvt. Ltd.:

"9. Broadly speaking while fixing
the amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages
and special damages. Pecuniary damages are
those which the victim has actually incurred
and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary
damages are those which are incapable of
being assessed by arithmetical calculations.
In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary
damages may include expenses incurred by
the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss
of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii)
other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, they may include :
(i) damages for mental and physical shock,
pain and suffering, already suffered or likely
to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to
compensate for the loss of amenities of life
which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be
able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss
of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury
the normal longevity of the person concerned
is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and
mental stress in life."

27. Similarly, in Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar and others the relevant
1 All. Mohaseb Ali Vs. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
865
factors for assessing losses and fixing
compensation in cases of personal injury
were stated in the following terms:

"6. The heads under which
compensation is awarded in personal injury
cases are the following:

Pecuniary
damages
(Special
damages)

(i)
Expenses
relating
to
treatment,
hospitalisation,
medicines,
transportation,
nourishing
food,
and
miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other
gains) which the injured would have
made
had
he
not
been
injured,
comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the
period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary
damages
(General damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering
and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating
the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any
of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi)
relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities
(and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life."

28. The Supreme Court in K. Suresh
Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
and Others, advocated the path of golden
mean while granting "just compensation"
by setting forth as under:

"2. ... There cannot be actual
compensation for anguish of the heart or
for
mental
tribulations.
The
quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which
has to be in the realm of realistic
approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
"the Act") stipulates that there should be
grant of "just compensation". Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to
determine "just compensation" which is
neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance."

29. By now the well settled principles
and guidelines for determination of just
compensation in personal injury cases were
reiterated in Kajal (supra) :

"5. The principles with regard to
determination
of
just
compensation
contemplated under the Act are well
settled. The injuries cause deprivation to
the body which entitles the claimant to
claim damages. The damages may vary
according to the gravity of the injuries
sustained by the claimant in an accident.
On account of the injuries, the claimant
may suffer consequential losses such as:

(i) loss of earning;

(ii) expenses on treatment which
may
include
medical
expenses,
transportation,
special
diet,
attendant
charges, etc.,

(iii) loss or diminution to the
pleasures of life by loss of a particular part
of the body, and
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv)
loss
of
future
earning
capacity.

Damages can be pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be
assessed in rupees and paise.

6. It is impossible to equate
human suffering and personal deprivation
with money. However, this is what the Act
enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has
to make a judicious attempt to award
damages, so as to compensate the claimant
for the loss suffered by the victim. On the
one hand, the compensation should not be
assessed very conservatively, but on the
other hand, the compensation should also
not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as
to make it a bounty to the claimant. The
court while assessing the compensation
should have regard to the degree of
deprivation and the loss caused by such
deprivation. Such compensation is what is
termed
as
just
compensation.
The
compensation or damages assessed for
personal injuries should be substantial to
compensate the injured for the deprivation
suffered by the injured throughout his/her
life. They should not be just token
damages.

30. More recently in an injury case
the Allahabad High Court in in New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Amit
Kumar Yadav and another emphasized
on foot of good authority that just
compensation
envisages
that
"compensation should fully and adequately
restore claimant to the position prior the
accident" by holding:

"It observed that scheme of Act,
1988 shows that award must be "just",
which means that compensation should, to
the extent possible, fully and adequately
restore claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages
is to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so,
in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
A person is not only to be compensated for
physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. It
means that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries,
and his inability to earn as much as he used
to earn or could have earned."

31. "Restoring the claimant to the
position prior to the accident" requires full
and
adequate
rehabilitation
which
integrates the disabled persons into the
social mainstream to the extent possible.
This imperative of just compensation is
consistent with the following preambled
object of the Disabilities Act, 1995:

"Statement
of
Objects
and
Reasons

"(vi) to make special provision of
the integration of persons with disabilities
into the social mainstream."

32. The principles governing the line
of judicial enquiry for determining the
compensation to which the claimant is
entitled for injuries as laid down in the
preceding authorities provide a reliable
guide for this case as well. Though it has to
be added that the enquiry to award just
compensation is a fact based enquiry. This
presents a difficulty in fixing one figure or
a single formula for all cases. The approach
of the courts has to be nuanced and not
pedantic. The quest of the courts to award
just compensation should not stray from the
path of golden mean.

33. While applying precedents in a
fact based enquiry the courts have to
1 All. Mohaseb Ali Vs. General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
867
consciously avoid a representative heuristic
or bias. "Errors of representative bias"
occur in judicial decision making when
precedents are applied to a case upon a
superficial
consideration
of
deceptive
factual similarities. The end result is a
judgement
that
excludes
relevant
considerations
which
should
actually
influence its outcome.

34. The role of an attendant to
mitigate hardships in cases of permanent
disability arising from grave injuries has
long been acknowledged by courts. Once
the requirement of an attendant is upheld,
provisions have to be made to effectuate
the services of the former. Hence while
awarding just compensation in such cases
attendant charges are factored in and the
multiplier system is applied. Further courts
have to be alert to the given future rise in
attendant charges, and cater for its future
enhancement as well. The aforesaid heads
are
integral
for
determining
just
compensation in such cases. Figure of 10%
towards future enhancement of attendant
charges seems reasonable in this case.

35. The narrative has the advantage of
good authority in point. In Kajal (supra)
after the need of an attendant was found,
attendant charges were assessed and
multiplier method was adopted to award
just compensation by holding:

"22. The attendant charges have
been awarded by the High Court @ Rs
2500 per month for 44 years, which works
out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this
system is not a proper system. Multiplier
system is used to balance out various
factors. When compensation is awarded in
lump sum, various factors are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid
in lump sum, this Court has always
followed
the
multiplier
system.
The
multiplier system should be followed not
only for determining the compensation on
account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges, etc. This
system was recognised by this Court in
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v.
R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1] . The
multiplier system factors in the inflation
rate, the rate of interest payable on the
lump sum award, the longevity of the
claimant, and also other issues such as the
uncertainties of life. Out of all the various
alternative methods, the multiplier method
has been recognised as the most realistic
and reasonable method. It ensures better
justice between the parties and thus results
in award of "just compensation" within the
meaning of the Act."

36. In wake of the preceding narrative
and in light of the facts of this case the
charges for the attendant are fixed at Rs.
2200/- per month. An additional provision
to the extent of 10% enhancement for
attendant charges is being made since
future rise in such expenses is given.

37. The monthly attendant charges
after making the provision for future
enhancement are fixed at Rs. 2420/- per
month. The age of the injured is 43 years.
The applicable multiplier as per Sarla
Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Company and another read
with Kajal (supra) is 14.

38. Apart from above, the impugned
award makes inadequate provisions for
various expenses like medical expenses,
pain suffering. The awarded amounts are
paltry when seen in light of injuries caused
and the permanent disability sustained. The
amounts cannot be justified from the
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence in the record. 7% interest will
serve the ends of justice.

39. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the amount of compensation to
which the claimant is entitled and is hereby
awarded, is tabulated hereunder:

Sr.
No.
Heads
Entitled Amount (in
Rupees)
1.
Treatment
30,000/-
2.
Transportation
35,000/-
3.
Loss of earning for
two months
50,000/-
4.
Future Medical
Expenses including
purchases of devices
150,000/-
5.
Pain and Suffering
loss of amenities
150,000/-
6.
Special Diet
30,000/-
7.
Misc. Expenditure
50,000/-
8.
Attendant Charges
2200/- per month
9.
Future
enhancement of
attendant charges
10%
10.
Total attendant
charges (annual)
29,040/-
11.
Multiplier
14 x 29,040 =
406,560/-
12.
Total compensation
901,560/-
13.
Interest
7%

40. The amount of compensation
awarded to the deceased shall be deposited by
the respondent-UPSRTC within three months
before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the
learned tribunal shall release the amount to
the injured-claimant without delay. The
amount already disbursed to the injuredclaimant (if any) shall be duly adjusted.

41. The appeal is allowed to the
extent above.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 868
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 3263 of 2014
With
First Appeal From Order No. 2556 of 2014

U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mrs. Deepali Srivastava, Sri Amit K. Sinha

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections - 168 & 173 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A(3)(iii): - Appeals -
against same accident & award - claimants'
seeks enhancement of Award & Corp. assailed
award
on
two
grounds
i.e.
contributory
negligence and incorrect multiplier applied by
tribunal - appreciation of evidence - deceased
died due to sustained injuries in accident -
accident caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of a bus of UPSRTC when
bus collided with the motorcycle of deceased -
court finds that - a head on collision does not
ipso facto mean that it is a case of contributory
negligence - on appraisal of evidence on record
court held that, finding of tribunal on the issue
of contributory negligence are upheld - And -
since the age of deceased was 36 as such in
place of 16 multiplier would be 15 as per
holdings in Sarla Verma's & Pranay Sethi's
judgments - directions accordingly.
(Para - 14, 15)

(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections - 168 & 173 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998- Rule 220-A(3)(iii): - Appeals -
against same accident & award - claimants'
seeks enhancement of Award & Corp. assailed
award
on
two
grounds
i.e.
contributory
negligence and incorrect multiplier applied by
tribunal
-
quantum
of
Compensation
-
appreciation of evidence - learned tribunal not
determined the compensation lawfully while
computing the amounts under the heads of
Salary, future prospects, deduction & Calculation
towards personal expenses & conventional
heads including multiplier - hence, in the light of