# National Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Manti Devi & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 387 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-28 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Amar Singh Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-company-ltd-v-smt-manti-devi-anr-43640 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote This First Appeal From Orders under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mau dated 26.08.2009 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2007. The Award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed. The first appeal from orders is allowed. The claim petition is restored to its original number. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: N.A ## Text 4 All. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Manti Devi & Anr. 387 Section 307 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 4 years and 6 months but the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307 I.P.C. and Rs. 8,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. is maintained. The remaining sentences with default stipulation is also maintained. The fine should be paid before release of the appellant. If, the fine is not paid, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and six months. 19. The appellant is in jail and would serve out the remainder of his sentence, if not already completed. 20. Let certified copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court immediately for sending modified conviction warrant of the accused appellant to the concerned jail. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J. First Appeal From Order No.- 3577 Of 2009 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Manti Devi & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Vinay Khare Counsel for the Respondents: V.C. Dixit, Pavan Kumar Srivastava, Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Rai This First Appeal From Orders under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mau dated 26.08.2009 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2007. The Award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed. The first appeal from orders is allowed. The claim petition is restored to its original number. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: N.A (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. & Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.) 388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. Heard Shri Vinay Khare, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the claimant. 2. This First Appeal From Orders under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1988') is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mau dated 26.08.2009 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2007 (Smt. Manti Devi vs. Sangeeta Rai and another). 3. Facts in short leading of the present proceedings are as follows: 4. On 15.06.2006 one Prem Chand Singh who was Incharge, Medical Officer, Nagwa, District Mau was moving on his motor-cycle bearing No. U.P. 50 J/3609 from Dhosi towards Mau. At the Pidhwal Moar at around 7:00 a.m. on the main road he was hit by a Maruti Car brand name Alto bearing Registration No. U.P.-70 54 E/7595 from the back. Because of the accident he fell down from the motor-cycle and was injured. He was taken to the District Hospital where he was referred to the Singh Research & Medical Centre, Maldhia, Varanasi. He is stated to have expired during treatment on 04.06.2006. A first information report of the accident was registered on 22.12.2006 at around 3:30 p.m. 5. The offending vehicle (Alto Car) was insured with M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And the insurance of the vehicle was valid at the relevant time. In respect of death of Prem Chand Singh because of the said accident a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the widow of the deceased namely Manti Singh. 6. After the parties exchanged their pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues for determination and after considering the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal ultimately awarded a compensation of Rs.10,80,960/- with 6% interest. The amount so awarded was equally divided amongst widow and the two sons of the deceased. 7. The findings which have been recorded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in respect of the factum of the accident, the offending vehicle being insured as well as the driver being possessed of a valid license are not challenged before us. The only ground pressed before us for challenging the Award is that although on the date of accident i.e. 15.06.2006, Prem Chand Singh was employed as Medical Officer in the medical department of the State of U.P. but he attained the age of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2006 much before his death. It is stated that the injured Prem Chand Singh actually expired on 04.07.2006 i.e. after his due date of retirement. It is submitted before us that having regard to principles of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in 2009 (6) SCC, 121 the Courts while determining the income of the deceased have usually to take only the actual income at the time of death and that a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. (Ref. Paragraph 24). It is, therefore, submitted that on the date of death Prem Chand Singh was a retired employee and was entitled to pension only. It is this pension which could have 4 All. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Manti Devi & Anr. 389 been taken into consideration at the time of death for the purposes of computing the total income and the fair compensation as has been laid down under the aforesaid judgment. 8. In the facts of the case the Trial Court has taken into consideration the salary of the deceased on the date of accident for the purposes of computation of the income and has thereafter determined the total compensation payable which is legally not justified. 9. Counsel for the claimant could hardly dispute the legal contention raised on behalf the appellant with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the appeal. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has gone into great detail in the matter of the right approach in assessing the compensation in proceedings under Sections 166 and 166-A of the Act, 1988. The Apex Court has specifically laid down that the compensation to be determined has to be 'Just Compensation". It is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. The Apex Court has added the words of caution in paragraph 16 and 17 of the judgment. 12. The Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the same judgment held as follows: "24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100% in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and incertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as 'actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 13. For our purposes the point of time for determination of the income is the date of death. 14. Since, in the facts of the case, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the deceased had already attained the age of superannuation prior to his death and that on the date of death he was only entitled to pension, the entire calculation of compensation made by the Tribunal 390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES on the basis of the salary which the deceased was to draw on the date of accident is rendered incorrect and unsustainable. 15. We are of the considered opinion that the income of the deceased had to be calculated with reference to his pension as he had already attained the age of superannuation along with other factors relevant under the Act, 1988. The amount of salary at the time of accident is not relevant, in our opinion, once it is found that on the date of death the victim has attained the age of superannuation. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons the Award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed. The first appeal from orders is allowed. The claim petition is restored to its original number. The Tribunal is directed to redetermine the compensation in light of the observations made herein above and in accordance with the Act, 1988. 17. The records of the Claim Petition be returned to the Tribunal concerned within two weeks from today. 18. The amount already deposited shall be retained by the Tribunal concerned and after compensation is determined afresh, as directed above, the money deposited shall accordingly be paid to the parties. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 3754 Of 2013 & Criminal Appeal No.- 4368 Of 2013 Rajendra ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Apul Misra, Sri Chandra Shekhar Mishra, Sri M.K. Pandey, Sri P.N. Misra, Sri Mohd. Afzal Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. Rape-Kidnapping-Homicide on Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 304 IPC set aside; FIR delayed about 25 hours without satisfactory explanation, "last-seen" and recovery versions inconsistent and unsupported by independent witnesses; medical evidence (no external injuries, old torn hymen, cause of death not ascertained despite viscera) and stray semen finding on petticoat held