# Smt. Asha Juneja & Ors v. M/S Delhi Transport Corporation, I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 427
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-12
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 837 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-asha-juneja-ors-v-m-s-delhi-transport-corporation-i-s-b-t-kashmiri-gate-47597
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Sri Sudhir Shanker, Sri
Vishesh Kumar Gupta

Motor
accident
claim-DTC
challenges
quantum of compensation being higherthe income was calculated without relying
upon the Income Tax returns of the year
prior to his death-wife earning -loss of
income contributed by the deceased has
to
be
considered-order
modifiedcompensation enhanced.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Smt. Asha Juneja & Ors. Vs. M/S Delhi Transport Corporation, I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate,
 Delhi & Ors.
427
means not to proceed to consider on merit
and/or
to
receive
and
take
into
consideration for adjudication. The word
''institute' in respect of legal proceedings
means, commenced; to begin an action. On
conjoint reading of Sub-Section (1) and (3)
of Section 9, it follows that a party to an
agreement may file/institute a petition for
interim measure but upon appointment of
an arbitral tribunal, the Court shall not
entertain the petition or proceed to consider
on merit until the condition provided
therein [Sub-Section (3)] is satisfied.

18. In the facts of the instant appeal,
on specific query, learned counsel for the
appellant failed to show that circumstances
exist that would have persuaded the Court
to grant interim relief on the constitution of
the arbitral tribunal. The application was
filed and notices were issued, respondents
put in appearance by filing written
statement and the matter was fixed
thereafter. In the meantime, arbitral tribunal
came to be constituted. The Court, in the
circumstances, was justified in declining to
entertain
the
application
for
interim
measure. The parties were rightly relegated
to the Arbitrator.

19. The learned counsel for the
appellant failed to point out any illegality,
infirmity or jurisdictional error.

20. The appeal, being devoid of merit,
is, accordingly dismissed.

21. No cost.
----------
(2021)09ILR A427
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO No. 837 of 1998
with
FAFO No. 846 of 1998
with
FAFO No. 1785 of 2018

Smt. Asha Juneja & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
M/S Delhi Transport Corporation, I.S.B.T.,
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.B. Singhal, Sri Abu Bakht

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Sri Sudhir Shanker, Sri
Vishesh Kumar Gupta

Motor
accident
claim-DTC
challenges
quantum of compensation being higherthe income was calculated without relying
upon the Income Tax returns of the year
prior to his death-wife earning -loss of
income contributed by the deceased has
to
be
considered-order
modifiedcompensation enhanced.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Malarvizhi & ors. Vs United India Insurance
Co. Ltd.& anr., 2020 (4) SCC 228

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indiro Devi
& ors., 2018 (7) SCC 715

3. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp. &
anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121

4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Smt. Renu Singh & ors. decided on 19.7.2016 ,
First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012

5. Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & ors. Vs The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Roshanlal Vs Jarnail Singh reported in 2016
ACJ 736 (P&H),

7. Gian Chand Vs Gurlabh Singh reported in
(2016) 16 SCC 590

8. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum
Vs Susamma Thomas & ors.,(1994) 2 SCC 176
9. U.P.S.R.T.C. & ors. Vs Trilok Chandra &
ors.(1996) 4 SCC 362

9. Sarla Dixit Vs Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC
1274

10. Hardeo Kaur Vs Rajasthan State Transport
Corporation, 1992 2 SCC 567

11.Puttamma Vs K.L.Narayana Reddy, AIR 2014
SC 706

12. Raman Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidyadhar Dutta,
2006 (3) SCC 242

13. R.K.Malik Vs Kiran Pal, AIR 2009 SC 2506

14. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi,
AIR 2017 SC 5157

15. Raj Rani Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2009 (13) SCC 654.

16. Ritaben alias Vanitaben Wd/o. Dipakbhai
Hariram & anr. Vs Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service & anr., 1998 (2) G.L.H. 670

17. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila
Shukla & ors., LL 2021 SC 359

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla,
learned Advocate on behalf of Sri Vishesh
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for Delhi
Transport Corporation and Sri P.K. Jain,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Abu Bakht, learned Advocate.

2. These are those appeals which are
pending adjudication since long. We started
hearing the matter but as Sri B.D. Madhyan
has absented himself, we waited and
adjourned the matter. Sri B.D. Mandhayan
who represents the claimants in F.A.F.O.
No. 1785 of 2018 absented himself today
also. Claimants in the said claim to be heirs
and legal representative of deceased as
according to them, Master Sikhar Juneja is
the legitimate son of Late Chandra Sekhar
Juneja and Anuradha Juneja who according
to him is legally wedded wife of Late
Chandra Sekhar Juneja. The said appeal is
dismissed for default.

3. As per the judgment of the apex
court in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Km Mamta and
Others AIR 2016 SCC 948, all the grounds
raised in the appeal are required to be
adjudicated and that is how we would
decide issue of negligence of driver and
quantum and would go ahead with the
discussion. All these appeals stem out of
the same proceedings.

4. The Delhi Transport Corporation
(for short 'DTC') has felt aggrieved as
according to them (DTC), the accident
occurred because of act of God namely
bursting of tyre which was never visioned
by the driver or the owner of the vehicle
and, therefore, the driver could not have
been saddled with the liability or attributed
negligence.

5. The next aspect for which the DTC
is
before
us
is
the
quantum
of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal
which according to DTC is on higher side
and is not decided as per law applicable in
the year of decision or accident.

6. As against this, Sri P.K. Jain,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
9 All. Smt. Asha Juneja & Ors. Vs. M/S Delhi Transport Corporation, I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate,
 Delhi & Ors.
429
Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the
claimants-Asha Juneja, Master Udit Juneja
and Km. Resham Juneja, has contended
that the Tribunal has fallen in error in not
considering the income of the deceased as
reflected in the Income Tax Returns of the
years prior to his death. The learned
Tribunal has held that till 1991, the Income
Tax Returns have been filed but, thereafter,
returns have not been filed. It is stated by
Sri Jain that in those days it was not
compulsory to file the income tax return
within six months of the financial year and,
therefore, combined returns were to be filed
but, the unfortunate event occurred in the
year 1993 namely on 30.7.1993.

7. It is further submitted by Sri Jain
that the Tribunal has discussed the oral
testimony of witness Asha Juneja widow of
the deceased that her husband used to earn
Rs. 1 Lakh per month. On what basis the
Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased to be Rs.2 Lakh per year is not
spelled out , no finding to that effect is
recorded by the Tribunal. According the
learned counsel for the claimants, there
were income tax returns which could have
been made the basis for consideration of
income of the deceased , may be for period
after 1991 that is later part,the income tax
returns were not there that cannot be the
basis to discard the Income tax returns
which were produced . In support of his
arguments, Sri Jain has relied on the
decisions titled Malarvizhi & Ors Vs.
United
India
Insurance
Company
Limited and Another, 2020 (4) SCC 228
and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Indiro Devi & Ors, 2018 (7) SCC 715. It
is submitted by the learned advocate for
DTC that the multiplier given by the
Tribunal is not in dispute as the learned
Tribunal has considered the second column
in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 which is lower than the one
suggested by Apex Court in Sarla Verma
& Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants
has contended that the deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased should
have been 1/4th when there were more than
five dependants, this is a gray area which
will have to be decided while deciding the
appeal preferred by Master Sikhar Juneja
and Anuradha Juneja as there is inter se
dispute regarding the right of these two and
dependency but it should not be one third is
the submission of counsel for claimants .It
is further submitted that no amount under
the head of future loss of income of the
deceased has been granted by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, it is submitted by Sri
Shukla, learned Advocate appearing for
DTC that in those days, in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunals were not
granting what is known as future loss of
income as the Rules did not prescribe and
thus the question of addition will not apply.
It is also submitted by Sri Shukla that even
in the year 1998, the rate of interest was not
12% but it should be as per the repo rate of
those days.

10. As against this, Sri Jain has
submitted that the repo rate in the year
1998 was 18% and thus grant of 12% does
not justify the rate of interest granted by the
Tribunal as the matter remained pending. It
is further submitted by Sri Jain that the
amount granted under the head of non
pecuniary damages for minor children and
the widow are on lower side and require
interference by this Court.

11. Learned counsel for DTC has
contended that there was no negligence of
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
driver of bus hence we propose to decide
the issue of negligence :

12. Let us consider what amounts to
negligence vis a vis act of God or
inevitable accident as contended by learned
counsel for DTC.

13. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

14. The principle of negligence has
been discussed time and again. A person
who either contributes or is author of the
accident
would
be
liable
for
his
contribution to the accident having taken
place.

15. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And
Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden
of proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to
conclusion that vehicle was being driven by
him rashly as well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor
Vehicle
Act
contain
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction of roads or at a
turning of the road. It is also provided that
driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
9 All. Smt. Asha Juneja & Ors. Vs. M/S Delhi Transport Corporation, I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate,
 Delhi & Ors.
431
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and
constantly increasing volume of traffic,
motor vehicles upon roads may be
regarded to some extent as coming within
the principle of liability defined in Rylands
V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From
the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of
this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit
and run' cases where drivers of motor
vehicles who have caused accidents, are
unknown. In fact such cases are increasing
in number. Where a pedestrian without
negligence on his part is injured or killed
by a motorist, whether negligently or not,
he or his legal representatives, as the case
may be, should be entitled to recover
damages if principle of social justice
should have any meaning at all.

20. These provisions (sec.110A
and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species,
new in its quality, new in its principles. In
every way it was new. The right given to
legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file
an application for compensation for death
due to a motor vehicle accident is an
enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged
in by limitations of an action under Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies.

21. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor
vehicle
is
being
driven
with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in
Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005
0 ACJ(SC) 1840).

22. By the above process, the
burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on
the defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."
emphasis added

16. Can it be said that the finding of
the Tribunal as far as it relates to
negligence is not based on these principles.
The aspect which has been highlighted by
the Tribunal is that the vehicle did not have
any screw fallen and it was not infected by
any external material on the highway on
which it was plied and, therefore, the
Tribunal recorded its finding that bursting
of the tyre on the highway was because of
two reasons namely (a) either it was not
properly managed vehicle or (b) it was
being driven in rash and negligent manner.
Even if we go by the theory put forth by Sri
Shukla, it has come on record that the bus
driver has not stopped the bus but drove the
same for ten minutes after the bursting of
tyre. Ten minutes would mean at least for
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
some distance. The driver of Car was
driving the vehicle on its correct side and,
therefore, we cannot take any different
view then that taken by the Tribunal.

17. Principle of strict liability as
enunciated by the Apex Court in Smt.
Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs. The
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2
SCC 9, will also have to be invoked. Thus,
the issue of negligence raised by learned
counsel for the DTC cannot be accepted.
The Apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum
(Supra) held that compensation has to be
given even if negligence/rashness of the
driver/owner is not proved in the manner to
be proved in dispute for tort and the
driver/owner can be made liable for
damages to the person who suffered on
account of such accidents. The principle of
strict liability has also been evolved by the
Apex Court and applied. Where there is
tyre burst, whether driver of the offending
vehicle can be held responsible? Principle
of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked and
reference can be had to findings in
paragraph 3 of judgment in Roshanlal vs
Jarnail Singh reported in 2016 ACJ 736
(P&H), and the Apex court judgment in
Gian Chand Versus Gurlabh Singh
reported in (2016) 16 SCC 590 wherein
while considering similar plea of act of
god, the court observed and held that pleas
taken by driver as well as the transport
undertaking as regards the accident were
totally at variance and there was nothing to
doubt the version of claimants and their
witnesses that the bus was driven rashly
and negligently. The court held that F.I.R.
substantiates the plea of the claimants and
not of the driver and held that it appeared
that bus driver drove the bus rashly and
negligently
and
initially
dashed
the
stationary tractor and then a eucalyptus tree
in that process due to application of brakes
belt of springs was broken it was a plea
taken by transport undertaking that a
scooterist was involved in the accident was
not believed holding that is totally a false
plea and is not supported by its driver. The
court held that bus was driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver and further
opined that apart from that merely a
mechanical failure is not enough to
exonerate the transport undertaking from its
liability in the absence of evidence being
adduced that the vehicle was maintained
properly.

COMPENSATION EVALUTED ;

18. This takes us to the submission of
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, as far as it relates
to income and calculation made by the
Tribunal. It is submitted that once the
Tribunal came to the finding that the
income tax returns post 1991 were not
filed, it could not have fixed the income
figure of Rs.2 Lakhs per annum randomly.
We agree with the learned advocates of
both the contesting parties who have
submitted that the Tribunal could not and
should not have considered the income
randomly and income and compensation
requires reconsideration. The income tax
returns of the year 1991 were before
Tribunal income of deceased has to be
proved by cogent evidence. In the present
case, the cogent evidence was oral
testimony along with the income tax
returns. It is not the case of the D.T.C. nor
have they brought on record that the
income of the deceased went on decreasing
post 1991. Courts should determine what is
known as just and fair compensation.

19. The submission that the Tribunal
has not granted any amount towards future
loss of income. Grant of future prospects
will have to be traced back and reference
9 All. Smt. Asha Juneja & Ors. Vs. M/S Delhi Transport Corporation, I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate,
 Delhi & Ors.
433
can be had to the decision in General
Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum
v. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,(1994) 2
SCC 176 wherein addition of future
prospects was also calculated. The decision
in
Susamma
Thomas
(Supra)
was
referred in U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra & Ors.(1996) 4 SCC 362 which
have been considered by the Apex Court in
Sarla Dixit Versus Balwant Yadav AIR
1996 SC 1274 and the Apex Court has
considered decision in Hardeo Kaur V/s.
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation,
1992 2 SCC 567. The decision in Sarla
Dixit has been considered to be good law
in (1) Puttamma Vs. K.L.Narayana
Reddy, AIR 2014 SC 706 (2) Raman Vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited,
Bijoy
Kumar
Dugar
Vs.
Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 (3) SCC 242 : (3)
Sarla Verma (supra)(4)R.K.Malik Vs.
Kiran
Pal,
AIR
2009
SC
2506
(5)National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 Raj
Rani Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, 2009 (13) SCC 654. We have
gone through the decisions in those days
referred to herein above and the judgment
of Gujarat high court in Ritaben alias
Vanitaben Wd/o. Dipakbhai Hariram
and Anr. v/s.Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service & Anr., 1998 (2)
G.L.H. 670, wherein, the Court has
observed as under:

"para-7: It is settled proposition
of that the main anxiety of the Tribunal in
such case should be to see that the heirs
and legal representatives of the deceased
are placed, as far as possible, in the same
financial position, as they would have been,
had there been no accident. It is therefore,
an action based on the doctrine of
compensation.

para-8: It may also be mentioned
that perfect determination of compensation
in such tortuous liability is, hardly,
obtainable. However, the Tribunal is
required to take an overall view of the facts
and the relevant circumstances together
with the relevant proposition of law and is
obliged
to
award
an
amount
of
compensation which is just and reasonable
in the circumstances of the case.

para-10: Even in absence of any
other evidence an able bodied young man
of 25 years, otherwise also presumed to
earn an amount of Rs.1000/- or more per
month, on that basis the prospective income
could be calculated by doubling the one
prevalent on the date of the accident, which
is required be divided by half, so as to
reach the correct datum figure which is
required to be multiplied by appropriate
multiplier. Even taking a conservative view
in the matter, the deceased would be
earning not less than an amount of
Rs.1000/- per month and considering the
prospective average income of Rs.2000/-
and divided by half, would, obviously come
to Rs.1500/."

20. Thus even in year 1990 to 2000,
the addition of future prospects was not
ruled out, just because tribunals in Uttar
Pradesh were not granting future loss, it
cannot hold field where the decision of
Apex Court is otherwise as demonstrated
with decision though of persuasive value of
Gujarat High Court referred herein above
wherefore, the submission of Sri Shukla
that no amount under the head of future
loss of income was admissible in those
days, will have to be considered. The
decision of the Apex Court in New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Urmila
Shukla and others, LL 2021 SC 359 will
have to be looked into. Therefore, we will
have to consider the same in the light of the
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recent decisions as well as the decisions of
the Apex Court prevailing.

21. In Malarvizhi & Others and
Indiro Devi & Others (Supra), it has been
held that Income Tax is the mirror of one's
income unless proved otherwise. In our
case, the returns as it reflects, proved
income of deceased to be Rs. 3,59,150/- per
annum. On what basis, the Tribunal has
disregarded
this
income
cannot
be
fathomed as a man's income would increase
unless proved otherwise. Even in the earlier
days, the factors to be considered for
issuing quantum of compensation reads as
follows:

i. To give present value, a
reasonable deduction or reduction is
required as lump sum amount is given at
a stretch under the head of prospective
economic loss;

ii. The tax element is also
required to be considered as observed in
the Gourley's case (1956 AC 185).

iii.
The
resultant
impairment/death on the earning capcity
of the claimant/claimants .

iv. That the amount of interest
is awarded also on the prospective loss of
income.

v.
That
the
amount
of
compensation
is
not
exemplary
or
punitive but is compensatory.

22. Hence we now propose to
calculate the compensation payable to the
legal heirs of the deceased. We can safely
now go by the income tax return for the
year 1990-1991. The widow, in her oral
testimony,
has
withstood
the
crossexamination which would negative the
submission of Sri Shukla that it was joint
property income which has continued. She
has categorically mentioned that the rent
been taken by her brother-in-law and
father-in-law. The amount of insurance
which has been received by her cannot be
deducted and that aspect is also answered
against Sri Shukla. She has categorically
denied in her oral testimony that her
income was more than that of her husband
even if that is so it is the loss of income
which
her
deceased
husband
was
contributing to the family has to be
considered and not what the wife was
earning.

23. We go by the fact that the income
of the deceased has to be considered Rs.
3,59,150/- per annum as reflected in the
income tax returns and supported by oral
testimony on record which deceased was
earning from business to which 40% will
have to be added even as per the earlier
decisions, 1/4th will have to be deducted as
we are convinced that there is an
illegitimate son of the deceased who has
filed appeal in this Court as marriage of
deceased with Anuradha Juneja has not
been believed by the Tribunal. The
multiplier would be 15 as the deceased was
in the age bracket of 36-40 and the 2nd
Schedule could not have been applied by
the learned Tribunal. Children who have
lost love and affection of their father will
each get Rs.30,000/- and Rs.40,000/- is
granted to the widow.

24. The total compensation payable to
the claimants is computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.3,59,150 /-

ii.Percentage
towards
future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.1,43,660/-

iii. Total income : Rs.3,59,150 +
1,43,660 = Rs.5,02,810/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/4th : Rs.3,77,110/- (rounded up)

v. Multiplier applicable : 15
9 All. Smt. Satyawati & Ors. Vs. Vidya Prakash & Ors.
435

vi.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.3,77,110 x 15 = Rs.56,56,650/-

vii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : 30,000 + 30,000 + 40,000 =
1,00,000/-

viii.
Total
compensation
:
57,56,650/-

25. It goes without saying that the interest
as per the repo rates in the year 1993 the interest
payable would be 6%. We would go by the
repo rate and not by Schedule and grant 6%
interest as appeals have remained pending for
no fault of the advocates. The rate of interest
could remain same throughout.

26. In view of the above, the appeal of the
DTC is partly allowed on the ground of interest.
The appeal preferred by claimants-Asha Juneja
and others is also partly allowed. The enhanced
amount be deposited within 12 weeks from
today.

27. We segregate the matter of Sri B.D.
Mandhyan i.e. F.A.F.O. No. 1785 of 2018 and
dismisses the same for default with liberty to
file restoration application with advance copies
to the other parties.

28. As far as disbursement is concerned,
office to list the matters after four weeks so that
we can pass order even on the matter of Sri
B.D. Mandhayan.

29. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal after two weeks.

30. We are thankful to Sri Shukla and
Sri Jain who have ably assisted the Court.

31. On the next date of hearing when
we would hear for disbursement, the DTC
would place on record the amounts
deposited before the Tribunal till date.
----------
(2021)09ILR A435
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO No. 863 of 2021
(FAFO Defective No. 136 of 2018)

Smt. Satyawati & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Vidya Prakash & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Rai

Motor accident claim-issue involvedcompensation awared and negligence
of
deceased
as
Tribunal
deducted
monetary benefits admissible to the
climants-deceased was tortfessor-he
died for no fault of his own-amount of
compensation recalculated.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Km Mamta & ors., AIR 2016
SCC 948

2. Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh
Amendment) Rules, 2011

3. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corp., (2009)
6 SCC 121

4.
Sri
K.R.
Madhusudhan
&
ors.
Vs
Administrative Officer & anr., (2011) 4 SCC 689

5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050