# Roop Lal & Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav & Ors - **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 749 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-01-04 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2124 of 2021 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-lal-anr-v-suresh-kumar-yadav-ors-48155 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote (A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation Enhancement - Section 163-A - Scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents . Son (07 years of age at the time of death ) of appellant died in accident - Appellants - claimants (deceased father and mother) filed claim petition before tribunal - awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum - aggrieved by award - filed appeal claiming enhancement of award.(Para - 1 to 7) HELD:- It is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupees and cost of living . Notional income of the deceased assumed to be Rs.25,000/- per annum as he was non-earning member . Notional income multiplied with applicable multiplier ''15' as prescribed in Scheduled-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 towards loss of dependency. Appellants entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- and entitled to the rate of interest as 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stand modified . (Para - 12,13,14,15) Appeal partly allowed.(E-7) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 2 All. Roop Lal & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav & Ors. 749 considered to be Rs.18,000/- per year, no amount under the head of future loss of income is given and only a sum of Rs.18,000/- as additional amount is granted for non pecuniary damages. Thus, this court does not that any amount under the head of in absence of the appellant appear before this Court, no amount requires to be enhanced. 17. Hence this Court do not feel that the tribunal has committed any error in allowing the claim petition. 18. In view of the above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. ---------- (2022)02ILR A749 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J. First Appeal From Order No. 2124 of 2021 Roop Lal & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Suresh Kumar Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vipul Kumar, Sri Shreesh Srivastava (A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation Enhancement - Section 163-A - Scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents . Son (07 years of age at the time of death ) of appellant died in accident - Appellants - claimants (deceased father and mother) filed claim petition before tribunal - awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum - aggrieved by award - filed appeal claiming enhancement of award.(Para - 1 to 7) HELD:- It is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupees and cost of living . Notional income of the deceased assumed to be Rs.25,000/- per annum as he was non-earning member . Notional income multiplied with applicable multiplier ''15' as prescribed in Scheduled-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 towards loss of dependency. Appellants entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- and entitled to the rate of interest as 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stand modified . (Para - 12,13,14,15) Appeal partly allowed.(E-7) List of Cases cited:- 1. Kishan Gopal & anr. Vs Lala & ors., 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) 2. Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz Ahmad & anr., 2017 (2) AICC 1229 4. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr. Vs Shyam Kishore Murmu & anr., 2021 (4) TAC 673 5. Puttamma & ors. Vs K.L. Narayana Reddy & anr., 2014 (1) TAC 926 6. Kishan Gopal & anr. Vs Lala & ors., 2013 (4) TAC 5 7. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.) 750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2021 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 116 of 2018 (Roop Lal and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal by the claimantsappellants with the averments that on 18.03.2018 claimant-appellant no.1, Roop Lal was walking with his son on Kakvan Road within the jurisdiction of police station Bilhaur Districct Kanpur Nagar. At that time, a truck bearing no. U.P.93 BT 4990 who was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the son of the appellant no.1 from behind due to which he fell on the road and front wheel of the truck ran over him. Appellant no.1's son sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was a child of aged about 7 years. 4. The respondents filed their respective written statements. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded Rs.1,80,000/- to the appellants-claimants who are deceased's father and mother respectively. 5. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal. 6. Heard Mr. Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Perused the record. 7. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has been decided in favour of the appellants herein. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issued to be decided is the quantum of compensation. 8. This is a claimants appeal, claiming enhancement of award for the death of a child who was 07 years of age at the time of his death. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was a brilliant student and he had very bright future. This aspect is not considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the notional income of the deceased is taken Rs.15,000/- per annum by the Tribunal. It is next submitted that learned Tribunal has held that the contribution of the deceased towards his family was only assumed as 1/2 of his income and in this way the Tribunal has awarded only 1/2 of his income as compensation, which is not just and proper. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the judgment and award passed by Tribunal also does not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality which may call for any interference by this court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the award is bad and relied on decision of this Court and 2 All. Roop Lal & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav & Ors. 751 Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC) relied by this Court in its recent decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows: "6. Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is also partly allowed." 11. The judgment of Kisan Gopal (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the apex court did not deduct any amount towards personal expenses. 12. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the controversy ans settled the law regarding the death of a child in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme Court). In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that in spite of repeated directions, Scheduled-II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum for non earning members is not just and reasonable. It is further stated by the Apex Court that in view of the judgments in the cases of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) TAC 926 and Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (4) TAC 5. It is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupees and cost of living. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the Hon'ble Apex Court took the notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum, hence we are of the considered view that notional income of the deceased must be assumed Rs.25,000/- per annum as he was non-earning member. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier ''15' as prescribed in Scheduled-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/- towards loss of dependency. The appellant nos.1 & 2 are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- funeral expense. Hence, the appellant nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the following amount towards compensation; (i) Loss of Dependency : 25,000/- X 15 = Rs.3,75,000/- (ii) Filial consortium : 40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000/- (iv) Total compensation : Rs.4,70,000/- 14. We hold that in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat 752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.), the appellant nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled to the rate of interest as 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 15. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 08 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. ---------- (2022)02ILR A752 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Writ A No. 19263 of 2021 connected with Writ A Nos. 19265 of 2021 and 19267 of 2021 Chandan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Jeevanjee Srivastava (A) Civil Law - Recovery of rent - Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, S. 292 - Rent due to municipality from a tenant of its demised shop can be recovered by issuance of recovery certificate & be recovered as arrears of land revenue (B) Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, S. 292 - U/s 292 rent in respect of properties such as demised shop can be recovered by the Nagar Palika either by directly levying distress, attaching and selling movable property of the defaulter under Chapter VI or issuing a recovery certificate u/s 292 read with Section 173A to the Collector - all the provisions of chapter VI apply to recovery of rent due to the Nagar Palika relating to the immovable property in view of Section 166 (1) (c) of the Act, that say any other sum, declared by the Act of 1916 or by Rules or Bye Laws to be recoverable in the manner provided under Chapter VI, can also be recovered (Para 19, 20, 21) Father of the tenant-petitioner, allotted Shop, owned by the Nagar Palika Parishad, on the basis of an auction for a period of 99 years - Nagar Palika Parishad issued recovery certificate, on account of outstanding unpaid rent - Petitioner pleaded that Nagar Palika Parishad have no legal right to issue a recovery certificate vis-a-vis defaulted rent due for demised shop & to recover it as arrears of land revenue - Petitioner contended u/s 173-A only taxes due can be recovered as arrears of land revenue but not rent, that is contractual in nature - Held - Nagar Palika well within their rights in issuing a recovery certificate to the Collector for the realization of arrears of rent due in respect of the shop that the petitioner holds on lease against payment of rent (Para 21) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5) List of cases cited :- 1. Ram Bilas Tibriwal Vs Chairman, Municial Board, Titri Bazar, Siddarthnagar & ors., 1998 (89) RD 514 2. Mohd. Umar Vs Collector/D.M, Moradabad & ors., 2006 (9) ADJ 66 (All) (DB) 3. Iliyas Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2007 (2) ADJ 143 (DB). (Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)