# Qutubudin Ansari v. Ram Shiromani Yadav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 610
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1012 of 2015
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/qutubudin-ansari-v-ram-shiromani-yadav-ors-46176
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 23 years old
and was doing private job earning a sum
of
Rs.
14,360/-per
month-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,880/- together
with interest @ 6% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-the deceased was survived by
five dependents- deceased was below the
age of 40 years, the deemed gross income
would
be
Rs
21,540/-per
month-By
applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss
of dependency is assessed Rs.21,97,080Thus, the claimants entitled for increase of
compensation a sum of Rs. 22,67,080/-
from
Rs.
4,80,880/-
@
6%
per
annum.(Paras 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The application is allowed.

In my judgment and order passed in
this First Appeal from Order, at the foot of
the judgment, for the date "December the
14th, 2021", the date "November the
25th, 2021" shall be read.

The order passed in this appeal stands
corrected accordingly.

In any report of this judgment, the date
"November the 25th, 2021" shall be shown
as the date of decision and not the
December, the 14th, 2021.
----------
(2022)01ILR A610
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1012 of 2015

Qutubudin Ansari ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Shiromani Yadav & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ankur Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, Sri Radhey
Shyam

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 23 years old
and was doing private job earning a sum
of
Rs.
14,360/-per
month-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,880/- together
with interest @ 6% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-the deceased was survived by
five dependents- deceased was below the
age of 40 years, the deemed gross income
would
be
Rs
21,540/-per
month-By
applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss
of dependency is assessed Rs.21,97,080Thus, the claimants entitled for increase of
compensation a sum of Rs. 22,67,080/-
from
Rs.
4,80,880/-
@
6%
per
annum.(Paras 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Ins. Com. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) LawSuit SC 1093

2. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs D.T.C. & anr.
(2009) 2 T.A.C. 677 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the
respondent
nos.
1,
2
and
performa/respondent nos. 1 to 5.

3. This appeal has been filed by the
claimant-appellant for enhancement of the
compensation awarded to him by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge,
Chandauli vide judgment and award dated
12.12.2012 passed by him in M.A.C.P. No.
7 of 2010 (Qutubudin and Others Vs. Ram
Shiromani Yadav and Others) for the death
of Akhlak Ansari, son of claimantappellant, who was aged about 23 years at
the time of the accident which had taken
place on 21.11.2009 caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of Truck
No. U.P. 32 CN 6892, owner whereof was
respondent no. 1, Ram Shiromani Yadav by
1 All. Qutubudin Ansari Vs. Ram Shiromani Yadav & Ors.
611
its driver respondent no. 2, Santram Yadav
while the deceased was going on his
motorcycle bearing registration no. U.P. 67
D-5979 to Bhadohi.

4. In the claim petition filed by the
claimant-appellant, it was pleaded that the
deceased at the time of his death was aged
about 23 years and was employed in the
Network Expert/Consultant Apitco Ltd.,
Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) and was
earning a sum of Rs. 14,360/- per month.
At the time of his death, the claimantappellant
as
well
as
claimantperforma/respondent nos. 1 to 5 were his
dependents. The total amount of

5. The claim petition was contested
by respondent nos. 1 to 3, who filed their
respective statements disputing the claim.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandauli after considering the evidence
on record and the submissions advanced
before him by learned counsel for the
parties
by
its
judgment
and
award
impugned in the present appeal, allowed
the claim petition in part and awarded a
sum of Rs. 4,80,880/- together with interest
@ 6% per annum as compensation.

6. Aggrieved, the claimant-appellant
as well as claimant-performa/respondent
nos. 1 to 5 have filed this appeal for
enhancement
of
compensation.
The
quantum of compensation awarded by the
M.A.C.T. has been challenged by the
learned counsel f

(i) The Tribunal failed to award
any amount towards future prospects.

(ii) The Tribunal erred in law in
applying the multiplier of 11 on the basis of
the age of the mother of the deceased
whereas the age of the deceased should
have been made the basis for applying the
multiplier.

(iii) The amount awarded under
the conventional head is too meagre and
not in consonance with the guidelines laid
down by the Apex Court.

7. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance upon the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in 2017
LawSuit (SC) 1093.

8. Per contra, Sri Radhey Shyam,
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 3 has made his submissions in support
of the impugned judgment and award and
argued that the same does not suffer from
any illegality, requiring any interference by
this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties present and perused the
impugned judgment and award as well as
other material brought on record and we
find that there is force in the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
appellant.

10. The constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the
case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra)
in sub-paragraph (iii) to (viii) of paragraph
61
has
ruled
inter-alia;
that
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
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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; in case the deceased was selfemployed 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; for
determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses,
the tribunals and the courts shall be guided
by paragraphs 14 to 15 of the case of Smt.
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport
Corporation
and
another
reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.); the
selection of multiplier shall be as indicated
in the Table in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra)
read with para 21 of that judgment; the age
of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier; 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.

11. In the instant case, there is no
dispute about the fact that the deceased was
permanently employed and his age was 26
years as per the postmortem report and hence
the Tribunal ought to have awarded 50% of
actual income of the deceased towards future
prospects. We therefore, hold that while
determining the income, the amount of 50%
of his actual salary shall be added to the
income of the deceased towards future
prospects.

12. Coming to the second ground of
challenge that the Tribunal erred in
applying the multiplier of 11 on the basis of
the age of the mother of the deceased, there
is merit in the aforesaid ground also. In
sub-para (vii) of paragraph 61 of the
Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the
Apex Court has categorically held that the
age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.

13. According to the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the correct
multiplier to be used where the deceased is
aged between 26 to

14. Coming to the last ground of
challenge, we find that the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral
expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of
consortium whereas no amount has been
awarded towards loss of estate. In sub-para
(viii) of paragraph 61 of the Pranay Sethi
and Others (supra), the Apex Court has
observed that reasonable figures under
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.

15. We, accordingly, proceed to
recalculate the compensation in the light of
the aforesaid principles. As noted above, the
actual salary of the deceased was Rs.
14,360/- per month or Rs. 1,72,320/- p.a.
less tax. By adding 50% towards future
prospects as the deceased was below the age
of 40 years, the deemed gross income of the
deceased would be Rs. 14,360/- + 50% of
Rs. 14,360/- = Rs. 21,540/- per month or Rs.
2,58,480/- p.a. After deducting 50% amount
(i.e. 21,540-10770) towards the living and
personal expenses of the deceased, his
contribution to the family is determined as
1 All. Vishal Gupta Vs. Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors.
613
Rs. 10,770/- per month or Rs. 1,29,240/- p.a.
By applying the multiplier of 17, the total
loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.
21,97,080/-. We further award a sum of Rs.
15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.
40,000/- under the head of loss of
consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
We
accordingly
increase
the
compensation awarded to the claimantappellant
as
well
as
claimantperforma/respondent nos. 1 to 5 by the
Tribunal from Rs. 4,80,880/- to Rs.
22,67,080/-. The claimant-appellant as well
as claimant-performa/respondent nos. 1 to 5
shall further be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a.
on the increased amount of compensation
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual payment is made.

16. The appeal is allowed in part.

17. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove.

18. The parties shall bear their own
costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A613
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No.1477 of 2008

Vishal Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.K. Ojha, Sri R.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Tiwari, Sri Ashok K. Jaiswal, Sri
Manoj Kumar Sharma

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-the injured-appellant was
21 years old at the time of accident and he
was final year student in engineering
college also he was earning Rs. 10,000 /-
per month by giving tuitions-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 3,29,000/- together
with interest @ 7% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-the appellant sustained 80%
disability due to amputation of his leg-
Annual loss would be Rs 67,200/ and By
applying the multiplier of 18 and including
other charges , the total loss of d is
assessed
Rs.
15,75,000/-Thus,
the
claimant
entitled
for
increase
of
compensation a sum of Rs. 15,75000/-
from Rs. 3,29000/- with modified interest
rate @ 7.5% per annum.(Paras 1 to 21)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand (2020) 0 AIJEL-SC
65725,

2. Philips Vs Western Rail. Co. (1874) 4 QBD 406

3. H.West & Son Ltd. Vs Shephard (1963) WLR
1359

4. Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar & ors. (2011) 1 SCC 343

5. K. Suresh Vs New India Assr. Co. Ltd. & ors.

6. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Lavkush & anr.
(2018) 1 T.A.C. 431

7. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr. (2014)
Lawsuit SC 371