# Raja Beti & Ors v. Ashok Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 66
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-16
- **Case number:** First Appl. From Order No. 2351 of 2017
- **Bench:** Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-beti-ors-v-ashok-kumar-ors-48834
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Sections 166, & 168 - Motor Accident
claim - deceased was working as Lekhpal
at the time of accident - Claims Tribunal
awarded only Rs. 65,000/- towards non
pecuniary
damages
&
nothing
was
awarded towards pecuniary loss on the
ground that after the death of deceased,
the widow was getting family pension as
well as employment under the Dying in
Harness Rules and receiving Rs. 7,500/-
per month as such there was no financial
loss to the family of the deceased Claims
Tribunal - Held - law has been settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vimal Kanwar that the amount received by
the widow towards family pension and the
salary
received
on
compassionate
appointment under the Dying in Harness
Rules cannot be deducted from the
compensation for which claimants are
entitled under the Motor Vehicles Act
(Para 10)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Determination of compensation - deceased,
aged about 42 years, was working as
Lekhpal at the time of accident, there was
five dependents on the income of the
deceased - Calculation - Monthly Income Rs.
7000 - Annual Income : 7000 x 12 = Rs.
84,000 - 30% future prospectus for the age
group of 40 to 50 years - Future prospects
(30%) = Rs. 25,200 - Total annual income
84000 + 25200 = Rs. 109200 - deduction
should be 1/4th where the number of
dependents are 4 to 6 - Deduction towards
personal expenses (1/4th) 109200 - 27300
= Rs. 81900 - multiplier of 14 for the age
group of 41 to 45 years - Multiplier
applicable (14) : Rs. 81900 x 14= Rs.
11,46,600 - Non-pecuniary damages : Rs.
70,000 - Total : 1146600 + 70,000 = Rs.
1216600 - claimants are also entitled for
interest at the rate of 7% on the enhanced
amount from the date of filing claim petition
(Para 12, 13)

Allowed . (E-5)

List of Cases cited :
6 All. Raja Beti & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
67

## Text

66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon preventing by the deceased, in a fit of
anger
he
along
with
his
unknown
companion hit the deceased who later on
died. This Court is of the opinion that seven
years'
rigorous
imprisonment
and
Rs.10,000/- fine is not much more in the
attending circumstances. No force was
applied against the accused. Informant and
deceased were working on the plot in
rightful manner and there was no occasion
to do the alleged act by the accused which
resulted in the death of the deceased. This
Court is of the view that the whole aspect
of the case has been fully proved by the
oral and documentary evidence. The
prosecution has been successful in proving
the case beyond reasonable doubt under
Part-II of Section 304 IPC, therefore, the
appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The
order of conviction and sentence dated
06.10.2018 passed by the lower court is
affirmed. A copy of this judgment be sent
to the concerned court and concerned Jail
Superintendent for compliance.
----------
(2022)06ILR A66
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

First Appl. From Order No. 2351 of 2017

Raja Beti & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shrinath Dwivedi, Sri Amit Kumar Sinha,
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Deepali Srivastava
Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.K. Srivastava
A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Sections 166, & 168 - Motor Accident
claim - deceased was working as Lekhpal
at the time of accident - Claims Tribunal
awarded only Rs. 65,000/- towards non
pecuniary
damages
&
nothing
was
awarded towards pecuniary loss on the
ground that after the death of deceased,
the widow was getting family pension as
well as employment under the Dying in
Harness Rules and receiving Rs. 7,500/-
per month as such there was no financial
loss to the family of the deceased Claims
Tribunal - Held - law has been settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vimal Kanwar that the amount received by
the widow towards family pension and the
salary
received
on
compassionate
appointment under the Dying in Harness
Rules cannot be deducted from the
compensation for which claimants are
entitled under the Motor Vehicles Act
(Para 10)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 166 & 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Determination of compensation - deceased,
aged about 42 years, was working as
Lekhpal at the time of accident, there was
five dependents on the income of the
deceased - Calculation - Monthly Income Rs.
7000 - Annual Income : 7000 x 12 = Rs.
84,000 - 30% future prospectus for the age
group of 40 to 50 years - Future prospects
(30%) = Rs. 25,200 - Total annual income
84000 + 25200 = Rs. 109200 - deduction
should be 1/4th where the number of
dependents are 4 to 6 - Deduction towards
personal expenses (1/4th) 109200 - 27300
= Rs. 81900 - multiplier of 14 for the age
group of 41 to 45 years - Multiplier
applicable (14) : Rs. 81900 x 14= Rs.
11,46,600 - Non-pecuniary damages : Rs.
70,000 - Total : 1146600 + 70,000 = Rs.
1216600 - claimants are also entitled for
interest at the rate of 7% on the enhanced
amount from the date of filing claim petition
(Para 12, 13)

Allowed . (E-5)

List of Cases cited :
6 All. Raja Beti & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
67
1. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.)

2. Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. 2009 (2) T.A.C.
677 (S.C.)

3. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi
2017 (4) T.A.C. 673

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra
Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh and
Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri N.K. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 5
and perused the record. No one is present
on behalf of other respondents.

2. This first appeal from order has
been filed by the claimants-appellants for
enhancement of compensation against the
judgment and award dated 08.08.2005,
passed by Ist Additional District Judge /
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Chitrakoot, in M.A.C.P. No. 163/70 of
2000 (Raja Beti and others vs. Ashok
Kumar and others) by which compensation
of Rs. 65,000/- only has been awarded to
the claimants on account of death of Sri
Bachcha Lal, aged about 42 years.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for
the
claimants-appellants
that
the
deceased was working as Lekhpal in Tehsil
Karvi, District Chitrokoot at the time of
accident and was getting salary of Rs.
7,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal
had acted in arbitrary manner has awarded
only Rs. 65,000/- on the ground that after
the death of Bachcha Lal, the claimant
appellant no. 1 who is widow of Bachcha
Lal was getting family pension @ Rs.
3,500/- per month and was also provided
employment under the Dying in Harness
Rules and was also getting salary to the
tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Claims
Tribunal was of the view that since the
widow was getting family pension as well
as employment under the Dying in Harness
Rules and receiving Rs. 7,500/- per month
and there is no financial loss to the family
of the deceased on account of death of
Baccha Lal. The Claims Tribunal had
awarded
Rs.
50,000/-
for
loss
of
consortium,
Rs.
5,000/-
for
funeral
expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and
suffering and total amount of Rs. 65,000/-
has been awarded to the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vimal
Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and
Others reported in 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.).
The relevant paragraph no. 19 and 20 are
reproduced herein below :-

"19. The first issue is "whether
Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance
receivable by claimants come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for
deduction."

The
aforesaid
issue
fell
for
consideration before this Court in Helen C.
Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said
case, this Court held that Provident Fund,
Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash,
bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc.
are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable
by the heirs on account of one's death but
all these have no correlation with the
amount
receivable
under
a
statute
occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within
the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to
be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for deduction. The following was the
observation and finding of this Court:

"35. Broadly, we may examine the
receipt of the provident fund which is a
deferred payment out of the contribution
made by an employee during the tenure of
his service. Such employee or his heirs are
entitled to receive this amount irrespective
of the accidental death. This amount is
secured, is certain to be received, while the
amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is
uncertain and is receivable only on the
happening of the event, viz., accident,
which may not take place at all. Similarly,
family pension is also earned by an
employee for the benefit of his family in the
form of his contribution in the service in
terms of the service conditions receivable
by the heirs after his death. The heirs
receive family pension even otherwise than
the accidental death. No correlation
between the two. Similarly, life insurance
policy is received either by the insured or
the heirs of the insured on account of the
contract with the insurer, for which the
insured contributes in the form of premium.
It is receivable even by the insured if he
lives till maturity after paying all the
premiums. In the case of death, the insurer
indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs,
again in terms of the contract for the
premium paid. Again, this amount is
receivable by the claimant not on account
of any accidental death but otherwise on
the insured's death. Death is only a step or
contingency in terms of the contract, to
receive the amount. Similarly any cash,
bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc.
though are all a pecuniary advantage
receivable by the heirs on account of one's
death but all these have no correlation with
the amount receivable under a statute
occasioned only on account of accidental
death. How could such an amount come
within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles
Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage"
liable for deduction. When we seek the
principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a
similar and same plane having nexus, inter
se, between them and not to which there is
no semblance of any correlation. The
insured (deceased) contributes his own
money for which he receives the amount
which
has
no
correlation
to
the
compensation computed as against the
tortfeasor for his negligence on account of
the accident. As aforesaid, the amount
receivable as compensation under the Act
is on account of the injury or death without
making any contribution towards it, then
how can the fruits of an amount received
through contributions of the insured be
deducted out of the amount receivable
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount
under this Act he receives without any
contribution. As
we
have
said,
the
compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount
receivable under the life insurance policy is
contractual."

20. The second issue is "whether the
salary receivable by the claimant on
compassionate appointment comes within
the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to
be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable
for deduction."

"Compassionate appointment" can be
one of the conditions of service of an
employee, if a scheme to that effect is
framed by the employer. In case, the
employee dies in harness i.e. while in
service leaving behind the dependents, one
of
the
dependents
may
request
for
compassionate appointment to maintain the
family of the deceased employee dies in
harness. This cannot be stated to be an
advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one's death and have no
correlation with the amount receivable
under a statute occasioned on account of
6 All. Raja Beti & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
69
accidental
death.
Compassionate
appointment may have nexus with the death
of an employee while in service but it is not
necessary that it should have a correlation
with the accidental death. An employee dies
in harness even in normal course, due to
illness and to maintain the family of the
deceased one of the dependents may be
entitled for compassionate appointment but
that cannot be termed as "Pecuniary
Advantage" that comes under the periphery
of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount
received on such appointment is not liable
for
deduction
for
determination
of
compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act."

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that the family pension
and salary received on appointment under
dying in harness cannot be treated as
pecuniary benefits and are not liable to be
deducted
for
determination
of
compensation.

6. On the other hand learned counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
respondentInsurance Company has submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is just and proper and no ground
for enhancement is made out but he has not
disputed the aforesaid legal positions.

7. From the perusal of impugned
award, it is apparent that nothing has been
awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards
pecuniary loss to the legal heirs of deceased
and only Rs. 65,000/- has been awarded
towards non pecuniary damages, whereas,
the law has been settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar
(supra) that the amount received by the
widow towards family pension and the
salary
received
on
compassionate
appointment under the Dying in Harness
Rules cannot be deducted from the
compensation for which claimants are
entitled under the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. The compensation for which the
claimants are entitled under the Motor
Vehicles Act are reassessed. There is no
dispute regarding the age of the deceased as
42 years at the time of accident. It is also
undisputed that the deceased was working
as Lekhpal in Tehsil Karvi, District
Chitrakoot and was getting salary of Rs.
7,000/- per month.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C. reported in
2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) has provided the
multiplier of 14 for the age group of 41 to
45 years and it is also provided that
deduction should be 1/4th where the
number of dependents are 4 to 6. The
relevant paragraphs no. 14 and 21 are
reproduced herein below :-

"14. Though in some cases the
deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the
general practice is to apply standardized
deductions. Having considered several
subsequent decisions of this court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased, should
be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth (1/4th) where the number of
dependant family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependant family members exceed six.

21. 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
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the
age groups of 15 to 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, and 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 to 70 years. "

10. Since, the age of the deceased was
42 years at the time of accident, the
appropriate multiplier would be 14 and
since, there was five dependents on the
income of the deceased, the deduction
towards personal expenses would be 1/4th.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (4)
T.A.C. 673 has also provided 30% future
prospectus for the age group of 40 to 50
years. the claimants are also entitled for
30% future prospectus. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has also provided certain guidelines
for calculating the just compensation under
the Moter Vehicles Act. Relevant paragraph
61 is reproduced herein below :-

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

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh
Devi 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.

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the
decision in Reshma Kumari, which was
delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding
precedent.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v)
For
determination
of
the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to
32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.

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

(vii) The age of the deceased should be
the basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii)
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."
6 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Brj Raj Singh & Ors.
71

12. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and law settled
by Hon'ble Apex Court, the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is
reassessed as follows :-

1. Monthly Income : Rs. 7,000/-

2. Annual Income : Rs. 7,000//- x 12
= Rs. 84,000/-

3. Future prospects (30%)
 =
Rs.
25,200/-

4. Total annual income
:
Rs.
84,000/- + Rs. 25,200/- = Rs. 1,09,200/-

5. Deduction towards

personal expenses (1/4th)
 :
Rs.
1,09,200/- - Rs. 27,300/- = Rs. 81,900/-

6. Multiplier applicable (14) :
Rs.
81,900/- x 14= Rs. 11,46,600/-

7. Non-pecuniary damages :
Rs.
70,000/-

Total : Rs. 11,46,600/- + Rs. 70,000/-
= Rs. 12,16,600/-

13. The Appeal is hereby partly
allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal
is modified and compensation awarded by
the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.
Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 12,16,600/-. The
claimants-appellants are also entitled for
interest at the rate of 7% on the enhanced
amount from the date of filing claim
petition.
The
respondent-Insurance
Company is directed to pay enhanced
amount a well as interest to the claimants
within two months from today.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A71
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH-VII, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Government Appeal No. 1880 of 1984

The State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Brij Raj Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ma, Sri Kuldeep Johri

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 372 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149, 148
& 307/149 - Challenge to-Acquittal-the
occurrence is of day light-all the accused
persons were present on the spot having
firearms
in
their
hand-they
have
committed the offence in furtherance of
common object of wrongful assembly-no
contradiction in the prosecution evidenceMere rivalry in gram panchayat election is
not
sufficient
cause
to
commit
the
offence-Trial court wrongly appreciated
the
evidence
holding
the
accused
respondents not guilty for committing the
murder of the deceased.(Para 1 to 62)

B. The motive may be considered as a
circumstance
which
is
relevant
for
assessing the evidence but if the evidence
is
clear
and
unambiguous
and
the
circumstances prove the guilt of the
accused, the same is not weakened even if
the motive is not a very strong one. It is
also settled law that the motive loses all
its importance in a case where direct
evidence of eyewitnesses is available.
(Para 47 to 49)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh Vs St. of Punj.
(1993) Supp 1 SCC 208