# Nand Lal Ram & Anr v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Meerut & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 209
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3573 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nand-lal-ram-anr-v-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-meerut-ors-45931
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Application of Multiplier - Sarla Verma's
principle - Age of deceased is 35 years - The
multiplier of 16 should have been applied -
Held, Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of

## Text

9 All. Nand Lal Ram & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Meerut & Ors.
209

15. Both the appeals stand disposed of
accordingly.

16. The parties shall bear their own costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A209
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3573 of 2010

Nand Lal Ram & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Meerut & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anurag Sharma, Sri Shashank Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.K. Chatterjee, Sri S.D. Dube, Sri
Neeraj Dube, Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Application of Multiplier - Sarla Verma's
principle - Age of deceased is 35 years - The
multiplier of 16 should have been applied -
Held, Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of
8. (Para 15)
B. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination
of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects - Pranay Sethi's principle applied -
Supreme Court has provided for 50% future
prospects for a person aged below 40 years -
Directed for the award of compensation include
50% towards future prospects of the income of
deceased. (Para 16 and 20)
C. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination of Compensation - Funeral
expenses and loss of estate - Pranay Sethi's
principle - Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -
Directed for the award of compensation include
Rs. 15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss
of estate. (Para 18, 19 and 20)

Appeal allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Raghuvir Singh Vs Hari Singh 2009 (2) ACCD
1120 (SC)

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Indira
Srivastava 2008 ACJ 614 (SC)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
4. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr (2009) 6 SCC 121

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashank Shekhar,
learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. In view of the office report dated
05.02.2020 service of notice is deemed sufficient
upon the proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6.

3. Sri N.K. Chatterjee and Sri S.D.
Dube, learned counsels for the respondents
are not present.

4. This first appeal from order has
been
preferred
for
enhancement
of
compensation awarded under the award of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated
26.08.2010 passed in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 1006 of 2008.

5. The total compensation that has been
awarded is Rs. 18,71,146/- along with the
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest @ 6% from the date of presentation
of application till the actual payment of the
compensation. The appellants have assailed
the award on the point of computation of
compensation
and
have
thus
claimed
enhancement of compensation and thereby
modification of the award.

6. The undisputed facts that have
emerged out of the pleadings and award are
that the deceased Tapesh Kumar while on
board of Santro Car No. WB 02 Q 8264
met a fatal accident on Delhi-Meerut
Highway in the night of 15.09.2008. The
accident occurred because of the standing
truck bearing no. HR 58 A 2127 along the
divider of the road which could not be sited
by Tapesh Kumar who was driving the Car
and the Car dashed into the truck. The truck
was loaded with iron bars that fatally
injured both husband and wife who died on
the spot. At the time of death the deceased
Tapesh Kumar was aged about 35 years and
he was working in Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation (ONGC), Mumbai as Deputy
Superintending Engineer and his monthly
income at the time of accident was Rs.
1,00,088.55 paise. The deceased was
survived by old aged parents Nand Lal and
Smt. Parvati Devi and four brothers namely
Anil, Deepak, Vijay and Ajay.

7. On the issue of computation of
compensation, two fold argument was led by
the Insurance Company before the Tribunal:
firstly, the argument was that the monthly
salary of the deceased included additional
allowances and therefore, only net income
should be assessed; and secondly, there
should be 2/3rd deduction because both
husband and wife had died in the accident
and direct dependents were only the parents.

8. Considering the above two
arguments and relying upon two judgments
of the Apex Court in the case of Raghuvir
Singh v. Hari Singh 2009 (2) ACCD 1120
(SC) and National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava 2008 ACJ 614
(SC) the Tribunal deducted only the
income tax from the salary and thus salary
was assessed as Rs. 77,870.72 paise and
accordingly
the
annual
income
was
assessed as Rs. 9,34,448.60 paise. The
Tribunal made 1/2 deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased and his
deceased wife and so after deducting 1/2 of
the amount, the annual income was
assessed to be Rs. 4,67,224.30 paise.
Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to apply
the multiplier on the basis of age of the
parents
and
accordingly
applied
the
multiplier of 8 and assessed the annual
income as Rs. 37,37,792/-. Towards the
funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- was awarded
and also for the loss of estate Rs. 2,000/-
was awarded. Thus, total income was
calculated as Rs. 37,42,292/-.

9. Since it was a case of contributory
negligence, so 50% of the liability was
fastened upon the car driver who is the
deceased himself and accordingly 50% of the
amount of total compensation assessed as Rs.
18,71,146/-, was directed to be awarded.

10.

Assailing
the
aforesaid
computation, three fold arguments have
been led by the learned counsel for the
appellants: (i) the multiplier has wrongly
been applied of the dependants whereas,
the multiplier should have been considering
the age of deceased at the time of accident;
(ii) no amount has been added towards
future prospects; (iii) the amount towards
loss of estate and funeral is too meagre an
amount.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants
in support of his arguments has relied upon
9 All. Nand Lal Ram & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Meerut & Ors.
211
the judgment of Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

12. Per contra the argument of
learned counsel for the Insurance Company
is that the Tribunal has rightly applied the
multiplier and has correctly calculated the
compensation and the award does not
warrant any interference.

13. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and their respective arguments
raised across the bar and having gone
through the judgments, we find that three
points raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants do require consideration.

14. Coming to the first argument
regarding application of multiplier, we are
reminded of the judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr
(2009) 6 SCC 121 in which vide para 42
the Court has held thus:

"42. 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 of 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, 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 years to 70 years."

15. The Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) has affirmed the
judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) and has
held that since the multiplier has already
been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been
approved in Reshma Kumari. Applying
the aforesaid principle and considering the
age of deceased being 35 years, we are of
the considered opinion that the multiplier
of 16 should have been applied and
therefore, we find merit in the argument of
learned counsel for the appellants that
multiplier of 8 has wrongly been applied by
the Tribunal.

16. Coming to the second question
relating the future prospects, we find that
the aspect of future prospects has also been
considered in detail by the Supreme Court
in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In
Pranay Sethi (supra) Supreme Court has
provided for 50% future prospects for a
person aged below 40 years.

17. In so far as the deduction is
concerned, we are satisfied with 1/2
deduction because both husband and wife
have died and virtually left behind their
aged parents. The other brothers cannot be
claimed to be direct dependents upon the
deceased brother nor, any evidence has
been led to prove that other brothers were
equally dependents like parents.

18. On the question of loss of estate
and funeral expenses also we are of the
opinion that the formula applied in Pranay
Sethi (supra) should be made applicable in
which Rs. 15,000/- in each of those
categories have been provided for. Vide
para 52 and 59 of the judgment in Pranay
Sethi's case, the Apex Court has held thus:

"52. As far as the conventional
heads are concerned, we find it difficult to
agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It
has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and
guidance for minor children. The head
relating to loss of care and minor children
does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to
Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the
same. The conventional and traditional
heads,
needless
to
say,
cannot
be
determined on percentage basis because
that would not be an acceptable criterion.
Unlike determination of income, the said
heads
have
to
be
quantified.
Any
quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has
been a thumb rule in this aspect.
Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty
in determination of the same and unless the
thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the Tribunals and courts
are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we
think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantum-centric. We think that it
would be condign that the amount that we
have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and
the enhancement should be at the rate of
10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring
in consistency in respect of those heads.

"59. In view of the aforesaid
analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:-

59.1. The two-Judge Bench in
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger
Bench as it was taking a different view than
what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a
judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same
strength cannot take a contrary view than
what has been held by another coordinate
Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh
(2013) 9 SCC 54 has not taken note of the
decision in Reshma Kumari, which was
delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh (supra) is not a binding
precedent.

59.3. While determining the
income, an addition of 50% of actual
salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of
the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
In case the deceased was between the age
of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was
self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income
minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the Tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to
9 All. Nand Lal Ram & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Meerut & Ors.
213
32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier
shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla
Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased
should be the basis for applying the
multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and
Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of
10% in every three years."
 (emphasis added)"

19. Thus, in view of the above
principles, we made a pointed query to the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company
as to what argument he would lead to
counter the argument advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned
counsel appearing for Insurance Company
has only submitted that the determination
of compensation has been made as per law
that existed at that point of time and
therefore,
appellants
should
not
be
benefited under the subsequent judgment.

20. To the above view, we do not
subscribe because the law declared by
Apex Court is taken to be a law always in
existence. In matter of beneficial legislation
where the issue is of quantum of
compensation, the Court should always
take pragmatic view and we find no reason
as to why the principles laid in Pranay
Sethi (supra) may not be made applicable
to the case in hand while determining
compensation, and accordingly we hereby
direct for the award of compensation to
include 50% towards future prospects of
the income of the deceased, Rs. 15,000/-
each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

21. We have already held above, the
multiplier of 16 corresponding to the age of
deceased shall be applicable. Accordingly,
therefore, the award of the Tribunal dated
26.08.2010 is modified by enhancement.
Now the compensation will be transcribed
as under:

Income as
salaried
employee,
of
the
deceased
minus taxes
Rs. 77,871/- p.m.
Rs. 9,34,452/- p.a.
Future
Prospects
50%
of
Rs.
9,34,452/-
Rs. 4,67,226/-
Total
Income

Rs. 14,01,678/-
Deduction
towards
personal
expenses
1/2 of total income
Rs. 7,00,839/-
Dependenc
y

Rs. 7,00,839/-
Multiplier

16
Compensat
ion
Rs. 7,00,839/- x 16 Rs. 112,13,424/-
Funeral
Expenses

Rs. 15,000/-
Loss
of
Estate

Rs. 15,000/-
Total
Compensa
tion

Rs. 112,43,424/-

22. Thus, the compensation awarded
by the court below is enhanced from Rs.
18,71,146/- to Rs. 112,43,424/- with 6%
per annum rate of interest from the date of
presentation of the application till actual
payment is made.

23. In view of the above, the appeal
stands allowed. The compensation awarded
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the claimants/ appellants under the order
of the Tribunal dated 26.08.2010 is
accordingly enhanced and award stands
modified to the extent indicated herein
above.
----------
(2020)09ILR A214
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

First Appeal No. 59 of 1978

Rahmat Ali ...Appellant
Versus
Rashid & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
M.A. Khan, Mohd. Arif Khan, Mohiuddin

Counsel for the Respondents:
R.S. Tripathi, Mohd. Abid Ali, Mohd. Adil
Khan, Ram Ujagir Verma, V.V. Tripathi, Z.
Rahman

Suit for specific performance decreed in favour
of Respondent-Plaintiff-against which Appeal
filed-substitution of Legal Heir was objected
not to be a rightful heir-Admission of
Respondent that the Legal Heir is son of the
Original Plaintiff's sister-his right could not be
ruled out altogether-decree upholded-relief
modified by increasing the sale consideration.

First Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

Cases referred: -

1. Dashrath Rao Kate Vs Brij Mohan Srivastava,
(2010) 1 SCC 277

2. Gulabchand Chotalal Parik Vs St. of Guj., AIR
1965 SC 1153

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.)

1. The defendants' first appeal
instituted under Section 96 CPC has arisen
against the judgement and decree rendered
by the trial court decreeing the suit for
specific performance in favour of the
respondents-plaintiff and the same has
come up for hearing after more than 40
years.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Mohiuddin Khan for the appellant and Sri
Mohd. Abid Ali assisted by Smt. Atiya
Abid for the respondents.

Brief description of the lis and
parties

3. The subject matter involved in the
Regular Suit No. 14 of 1971 filed by the
predecessor in interest of respondents no.
1/a to 1/i is a house property which was
agreed to be sold through an oral agreement
pursuant to which part payment was made
under a receipt duly witnessed. Nonperformance of the agreement gave rise to
the suit.

4. The case set up by the plaintiff was
that for a sum of Rs. 12000/- the house in
dispute was orally agreed to be sold by late
Ashraf and his wife Ahmadi who were
impleaded as defendants no. 1 and 2
respectively in the suit. Defendant no. 1
died during pendency of the suit whereas
defendant no. 2 has died during pendency
of the present appeal. Defendant no. 2 who
was appellant no. 1 herein consequent upon
her death has come to be substituted by
appellants no. 1/1 and 1/2 by transposition.
The occasion for transposition arose for the
reason that the two daughters of main
contesting defendants (late Ashraf and
Ahmadi) though being substituted as
defendants in place of late Ashraf while the