# Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors v. U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 274
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 840 of 2011
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-bhagauta-devi-ors-v-u-p-s-r-t-c-ltd-48883
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166 - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 220, 220-A, 220-A(2), 220A(3), 220-A(4): - Claimant's Appeal -
Quantum of compensation - Accident was
caused due to high speed & negligence
driving - denial of existence of the Bus on
the route in question - in absence of route
permit, tribunal gave finding against
corporation and allowed the claim -
Enhancement of compensation - deceased
was estimated to be aged between 46-50
years - deceased was an unskilled casual
labour - thus, Multiplier of 13 should be
applied instead of 11, - deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal expense as per the law
lay down in Sarla Verma's & Pranay Sethi'
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, - 20%
of income ought to be added towards
future loss of income - including Rs.
40,000/- towards spousal consortium as
adult children would not be entitled to
7 All. Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd.
275
parental
consortium
-
compensation
awarded by the tribunal, enhanced as
from Rs. 1,48,670 with 6% rate of interest
to Rs. 4,44,400/- with 7% rate of interest
- Appeal allowed - directions accordingly.
(Para -9, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23)

Appeal - allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue,
he should exercise his power under Order
7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And,
if clever drafting has created the illusion of
a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the
first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An
activist
Judge
is
the
answer
to
irresponsible law suits. The trial courts
would insist imperatively on examining the
party at the first hearing so that bogus
litigation can be shot down at the earliest
stage."

E. CONCLUSION:-

180. At this stage, this Court finds
that there is conspicuous absence of
material facts in respect of the cause of
action relating to the fact of filing of a valid
affidavit in Form-26. This necessarily leads
to infer from a meaningful reading of the
petition that the revised affidavit as brought
on record is bereft of material particulars so
also the pleadings in co-relation to it which
creates a lacuna in the cause of action.

181. In light of the detailed
discussions hereinabove, the irresistible
conclusion is that the revised affidavit as
annexed to the election petition is not as
per norms and the initial affidavit was
defective which rendered the nomination of
the petitioner invalid. The petitioner is not
a duly nominated candidate nor can he
claim to be a duly nominated candidate at
an
election,
hence,
it
creates
an
insurmountable hurdle for the petitioner to
maintain this petition.

182. For the foregoing reasons, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the
challenge raised by the respondents to the
election petition must succeed and the
election petitioner not being a duly
nominated candidate is not entitled to
maintain the election petition. Ergo, the
election petition is dismissed in exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, with
no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)07ILR A274
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 840 of 2011

Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Vivek Manishi Shukla, Ashish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Akhter Abbash, Prabhakar Tiwari, Sachindra
Dwivedi

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166 - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rules 220, 220-A, 220-A(2), 220A(3), 220-A(4): - Claimant's Appeal -
Quantum of compensation - Accident was
caused due to high speed & negligence
driving - denial of existence of the Bus on
the route in question - in absence of route
permit, tribunal gave finding against
corporation and allowed the claim -
Enhancement of compensation - deceased
was estimated to be aged between 46-50
years - deceased was an unskilled casual
labour - thus, Multiplier of 13 should be
applied instead of 11, - deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal expense as per the law
lay down in Sarla Verma's & Pranay Sethi'
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, - 20%
of income ought to be added towards
future loss of income - including Rs.
40,000/- towards spousal consortium as
adult children would not be entitled to
7 All. Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd.
275
parental
consortium
-
compensation
awarded by the tribunal, enhanced as
from Rs. 1,48,670 with 6% rate of interest
to Rs. 4,44,400/- with 7% rate of interest
- Appeal allowed - directions accordingly.
(Para -9, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23)

Appeal - allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Urmila
Shukla & ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822

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

4. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & ors., 2020
SCC OnLine SC 410

5. Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors., (2018) 18
SCC 130

6. Jiuti Devi & ors. Vs Manoj Kumar Rai & ors.,
2022 SCC OnLine All 46

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a claimants' appeal, seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. On 18th of September, 2007,
Ramasrey, a resident of Village Jamhoura,
Post
Sikandrabad,
Police
Station
Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, had
gone to the north of his village in the fields,
to answer the call of nature. While
returning home at 7:30 p.m. on the SitapurLakhimpur Road, as he reached the culvert
near Village Jamhoura, a U.P. Roadways
bus bearing Registration No. UP-25G9999, that was driven at a high speed and
negligently, hit him head-on. He was
grievously injured and conveyed by the
members of his family to the District
Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, where during
treatment, he breathed his last. At the time
of his demise, Ramasrey was aged about 48
years. He was engaged in agriculture as
well as supply of milk. He had a monthly
income of Rs.7,000/-. In future, this income
was expected to go double as per his
dependents' claim. He left behind his
widow, Smt. Bhagauta Devi, besides three
sons as his dependents.

3. The claimants petitioned the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur
Kheri seeking compensation in the sum of
Rs. 20 lakhs. The claim petition was
numbered
as
Motor Accident
Claim
Petition No. 207 of 2007 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District
Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. A written statement was filed on
behalf of the Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (for short, 'the
Corporation), who denied the accident.
They said that the bus in question, on the
date of accident, was plying on the SitapurGola
Road.
The
bus
was
operated
according to rules. It had all the necessary
papers, such as the Registration Certificate,
Road Tax Payment Certificate and Fitness
Certificate. The driver had a valid and
effective driving licence.

5. On the issue relating to the factum
of accident involving the Corporation's bus,
the
Tribunal
held
that
it
was
the
Corporation's bus that was responsible for
causing the accident, as it was driven
negligently and at a high speed in the
manner alleged by the claimants. The
driving licence of the driver operating the
bus was found valid and effective as also
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the other papers. There is just one remark
by the Tribunal in its finding on the second
issue that the route permit was not
produced.

6. Before this Court, the issue is about
the compensation, that is payable to the
claimants, who are in appeal. The Tribunal,
by the judgment impugned, has awarded
the claimants compensation in the sum of
Rs.1,48,670/- together with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
order
until
realization.
Out
of
the
compensation payable, a two-thirds has
been directed to be paid to the widow and
one-third, in equal share, to the three sons
of the deceased.

7. Dissatisfied by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the claimants have preferred the instant
appeal.

8. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey,
learned
Counsel
for
the
appellantclaimants and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari,
learned Counsel for the Corporation.

9. The Tribunal has proceeded to
work out the compensation on the basis
that there was no proof that the deceased
had a monthly income of Rs. 7000/-, and,
therefore, his income would be reckoned
on the daily-wage payable to an unskilled
casual
labourer,
contemporaneous
in
time. The daily-wage of a casual labourer
has been determined by the Tribunal at a
figure of Rs. 60/- per day, which would
lead to an annual income of Rs. 21,600/-.
The Tribunal has made a deduction of Rs.
600/-
for
the
fact
that
a
dailywager/casual labourer would not earn
throughout the year. Thus, annual income
of the deceased has been determined at a
sum of Rs. 21,000/-.

10. There is no written certification of
the deceased's age and, therefore, parole
evidence, medical estimation and other
circumstances
have
been
taken
into
consideration by the Tribunal to arrive at a
conclusion that the deceased was aged
about 50 years. He has been placed in the
age bracket of 50-55 years for the purpose
of adopting a multiplier. A multiplier of '11'
has been adopted. Thus, to the annual
income of Rs. 20,000/-, a multiplier of ''11'
was applied to arrive at a total income of
Rs. 2,20,000/-. A deduction of one-third
towards personal expenses has been made
in order to workout the dependency. The
dependency has been calculated at a figure
of Rs.1,46,670/-. To this, a sum of
Rs.2000/- has been added on account of
money spent on the funeral. It is, thus, that
a compensation of Rs.1,48,670/- has been
awarded by the Tribunal.

11. The learned Counsel for the
claimants has argued that the daily-wages
of a casual labourer fixed at a figure of Rs.
60/- is abysmally low. At the relevant time,
the
minimum
wages
fixed
by
the
Government were Rs. 100/- per day. The
applicable multiplier and the deduction
made towards personal expenses too have
been
criticized
as
unlawfully
disadvantageous to the claimants. It is also
argued that nothing has been awarded
towards future prospects or loss of estate
and loss of consortium.

12. On the other hand, the learned
Counsel for the Corporation has supported
the award, saying that it is just.

13. In the opinion of this Court, the
edifice on which the compensation has
been assessed, that is a daily-wage of Rs.
60/-, is unrealistic and abysmally low. At
the relevant time, there is no dispute that
7 All. Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd.
277
the minimum wages payable to an
unskilled casual labourer was Rs. 100/-.
This Court, therefore, thinks that the award
has to be determined based on a daily-wage
of Rs. 100/-. Also, no deduction can be
made for the intermittent employment that
a casual labourer gets. Therefore, the daily
income of the deceased has to be revised to
the figure of Rs. 100/-. The monthly
income would be Rs. 3000/- and the annual
income Rs.36,000/-, instead of Rs.20,000/-
determined by the Tribunal.

14. The age of the deceased,
accepting that it was in the age bracket of
50-55, would not deprive the claimants of
the accretion towards future prospects,
going by the rule in National Insurance
Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
(2017) 16 SCC 680. The deceased being
self-employed, there would be an addition
to his income of 10%. However, in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, determination of
future prospects has to be done in
accordance with Rule 220-A(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (for
short, ''the Rules of 1998') framed under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the
Act of 1988'). These rules are to be applied
in preference to the Rule in Pranay Sethi
(supra) in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd v. Urmila Shukla and others,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 822. Thus, going by
Rule 220-A(3)(iii), the claimants would be
entitled to add 20% to the deceased's
monthly emoluments by way of future
prospects.

15. So far as the multiplier is
concerned, it has to be applied according to
the table in Paragraph 42 of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC
121. This has been approved by the
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay
Sethi and followed in United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder
Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others,
2020 SCC OnLine SC 410. In Sarla
Verma (supra), about the applicable
multiplier, going by different age brackets
for the deceased, it has been held:

"40. The multipliers indicated in
Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra
[(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10
SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] (for
claims under Section 166 of the MV Act) is
given below in juxtaposition with the
multiplier
mentioned
in
the
Second
Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of
the MV Act (with appropriate deceleration
after 50 years):

Age of
the
decease
d
Multipli
er scale
as
envisag
ed
in
Susam
ma
Thomas
[(1994)
2 SCC
176
:
1994
SCC
(Cri)
335]
Multiplier
scale
as
adopted
by Trilok
Chandra
[(1996) 4
SCC 362]
Multiplie
r scale in
Trilok
Chandra
[(1996) 4
SCC 362]
as
clarified
in
Charlie
[(2005)
10
SCC
720
:
2005
SCC
(Cri)
1657]
Mul
tipli
er
spe
cifie
d in
Sec
ond
Col
umn
in
the
Tabl
e in
Sec
ond
Sch
edul
e to
the
MV
Act
Mul
tipli
er
actu
ally
use
d in
Sec
ond
Sch
edul
e to
the
MV
Act
(as
see
n
fro
m
the
qua
ntu
m of
com
pen
sati
on)
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'(1)
'(2)
'(3)
'(4)
'(5) '(6)
Up to
15 yrs
-
-
-
15 20
15 to
20 yrs
16
18
18
16 19
21 to
25 yrs
15
17
18
17 18
26 to
30 yrs
14
16
17
18 17
31 to
35 yrs
13
15
16
17 16
36 to
40 yrs
12
14
15
16 15
41 to
45 yrs
11
13
14
15 14
46 to
50 yrs
10
12
13
13 12
51 to
55 yrs
9
11
11
11 10
56 to
60 yrs
8
10
09
8
8
61 to
65 yrs
6
08
07
5
6
Above
65 yrs
5
05
05
5
5

41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply
different
operative
multipliers.
Some
follow the multiplier with reference to
Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 335] [set out in Column (2)
of the table above]; some follow the
multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra
[(1996) 4 SCC 362] , [set out in Column
(3) of the table above]; some follow the
multiplier with reference to Charlie [(2005)
10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] [set
out in Column (4) of the table above];
many follow the multiplier given in the
second column of the table in the Second
Schedule of the MV Act [extracted in
Column (5) of the table above]; and some
follow the multiplier actually adopted in
the Second Schedule while calculating the
quantum of compensation [set out in
Column (6) of the table above]. For
example if the deceased is aged 38 years,
the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma
Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC
(Cri) 335] , 14 as per Trilok Chandra
[(1996) 4 SCC 362] , 15 as per Charlie
[(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
1657] , or 16 as per the multiplier given in
Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the
MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually
adopted in the Second Schedule to the MV
Act. Some tribunals, as in this case, apply
the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance
years of service with reference to the
retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this
kind of inconsistency. We are concerned
with cases falling under Section 166 and
not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In
cases falling under Section 166 of the MV
Act, Davies method [Davies v. Powell
Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942
AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] is
applicable.

42. 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
[(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] ,
Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and
Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 1657] ), which starts 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,
7 All. Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd.
279
M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

16. Here, the Tribunal has placed the
deceased in the age bracket of 50-55 years.
There are two age brackets in Paragraph 42
of the decision in Sarla Verma, under
which the deceased could, therefore, be
placed. One is 46-50 years and the other,
51-55 years. There is no age bracket of 5055 years in Sarla Verma. Considering that
the Act of 1988 is a beneficial legislation,
any doubt about an applicable principle that
governs compensation must be construed in
favour of the claimants. Here, what is all
the more relevant is that according to
medical opinion, in the absence of any
written certification of age, the deceased
has been estimated to be aged 50 years.
This is indicated in the autopsy report.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the
deceased ought to be placed in the age
group of 46-50 years for the purpose of
adopting the applicable multiplier. For the
age bracket of 46-50, the applicable
multiplier is '13'. Therefore, the claimants
are
entitled
to
determination
of
compensation by an application of the
multiplier of '13'; not '11'.

17. Going by the number of dependents
that the deceased left behind, that is to say, the
claimants, deduction of one-third towards
personal and living expenses ordered by the
Tribunal is unexceptionable. This accords with
Rule 220-A(2) of the Rules of 1998 as well as
the principle laid down in Sarla Verma.
However, the Tribunal has certainly gone
wrong in not awarding anything by way of
compensation for the loss of estate and the loss
of
consortium.
The
principle
regarding
compensation under the conventional heads has
been authoritatively considered and laid down
by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi thus :

"48. This aspect needs to be clarified and
appositely stated. The conventional sum has
been provided in the Second Schedule to the
Act. The said Schedule has been found to be
defective as stated by the Court in Trilok
Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4
SCC 362] . Recently, in Puttamma v. K.L.
Narayana Reddy [Puttamma v.K.L. Narayana
Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ)
384 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 574] it has been
reiterated by stating : (SCC p. 80, para 54)

"54. ... we hold that the Second Schedule
as was enacted in 1994 has now become
redundant, irrational and unworkable due to
changed scenario including the present cost of
living and current rate of inflation and increased
life expectancy."
49. As far as multiplier or multiplicand is
concerned, the same has been put to rest by the
judgments of this Court. Para 3 of the Second
Schedule also provides for general damages in
case of death. It is as follows:

"3. General damages (in case of death):

The following general damages shall
be payable in addition to compensation
outlined above:

(i)
Funeral expenses
Rs
2000
(ii)
Loss
of
consortium,
if
beneficiary is the spouse

Rs
5000
(iii)
Loss of estate
Rs
2500
(iv)
Medical expenses -- actual
expenses incurred before
death
supported
by
bills/vouchers
but
not
exceeding
Rs
15,000
"

50. On a perusal of various decisions
of this Court, it is manifest that the Second
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Schedule has not been followed starting
from the decision in Trilok Chandra [UP
SRTC v.Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC
362] and there has been no amendment to
the same. The conventional damage amount
needs to be appositely determined. As we
notice, in different cases different amounts
have been granted. A sum of Rs 1,00,000
was granted towards consortium inRajesh
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . The
justification for grant of consortium, as we
find fromRajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179
: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149] , is founded on the observation
as we have reproduced hereinbefore.

51. On the aforesaid basis, the Court
has revisited the practice of awarding
compensation under conventional heads.

52. As far as the conventional heads
are concerned, we find it difficult to agree
with the view expressed in Rajesh[Rajesh
v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4
SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted
Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance
for minor children. The head relating to
loss of care and minor children does not
exist. ThoughRajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014)
1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi
[Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012)
2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to
follow the same. The conventional and
traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because
that would not be an acceptable criterion.
Unlike determination of income, the said
heads
have
to
be
quantified.
Any
quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
oblivious to the same. There has been a
thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there
will be extreme difficulty in determination
of the same and unless the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a
consequence of which, the orders passed by
the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to
fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that
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
principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should
not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be
enhanced on percentage basis in every
three years and the enhancement should be
at the rate of 10% in a span of three years.
We are disposed to hold so because that
will bring in consistency in respect of those
heads."

 (emphasis by Court)

18. The award of compensation under
the conventional heads, particularly for the
loss of consortium, subsequently received
the consideration of the Supreme Court in
Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram
and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. In
Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd. (supra), it has been held:

"21. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Pranay Sethi[National Insurance
7 All. Smt. Bhagauta Devi & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd.
281
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2
SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads
under which compensation is to be awarded
in a death case. One of these heads is loss
of
consortium.
In
legal
parlance,
"consortium" is a compendious term which
encompasses
"spousal
consortium",
"parental
consortium",
and
"filial
consortium". The right to consortium
would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of
the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include
sexual relations with the deceased spouse :
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally
defined
as
rights
pertaining
to
the
relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society,
cooperation, affection, and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law
Dictionary(5th Edn., 1979).]

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to
the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of
the parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great
shock and agony to the parents and family
of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their
lifetime. Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their role in
the family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism
reflecting changing norms about the status
and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised
that the value of a child's consortium far
exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions
therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of
the love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial legislation aimed at providing
relief to the victims or their families, in
cases of genuine claims. In case where a
parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to children
who lose their parents in motor vehicle
accidents under the Act. A few High Courts
have awarded compensation on this count [
Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v.
Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 :
(2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High
Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013
SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687;
Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v.
Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC
OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] .
However, there was no clarity with respect
to the principles on which compensation
could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.

24. The amount of compensation to be
awarded as consortium will be governed by
the principles of awarding compensation
under "loss of consortium" as laid down
inPranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it
appropriate to award the father and the
sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs
40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The award under the conventional
heads being provided on a dynamic scale
and more to the advantage of the claimants
in Pranay Sethi, as compared to Rule 220A(4) of the 1998 Rules, the principle in the
former would govern the award of
compensation
under
the
conventional
heads.

20. There is one facet of the matter,
which requires some further consideration,
and
that
is
about
the
award
of
compensation for the loss of consortium to
the children. Here, all the three children are
adults, with Mohan Lal being an all of 26
years, Shri Chandra 24 years and Prem
Prakash 22 years, when the cause of action
arose. In case of children, who are adults,
compensation for the loss of parental
consortium would not be their entitlement.
The adult children would not be entitled to
parental consortium, as held by me in Jiuti
Devi and others vs. Manoj Kumar Rai
and others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 46.

21. Thus, in the opinion of this Court,
under
the
conventional
head
of
compensation for the loss of consortium,
the claimant, Smt. Bhagauta Devi would
alone be entitled. She would be entitled to
spousal consortium in the sum of Rs.
40,000/-. However, for the loss of estate,
the claimants would be entitled to Rs.
15,000/- and likewise, for the funeral
expenses, a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The
impugned award passed by the Tribunal
has,
therefore,
to
be
modified
and
compensation re-determined as follows :

(i)Monthly Income (of the deceased)=
3000/-

(ii)Monthly
Income
+
Future
Prospects (monthly income x 20%) =
3000+600
= 3600/-

(iii) Annual Income (of the deceased)
= 3600 x 12 = 43,200/-

(iv)Annual Dependency = Annual
Income - one-third deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased = 43,200
- 14,400 = 28,800/-

(iv) Total Dependency = Annual
Dependency x Applied Multiplier = 28,800
x 13 = 3,74,400/-

(v)Claimants'
entitlement
towards
conventional heads = Loss of Estate +
Funeral
Expenses
+
dependent's
Consortium = 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 =
70,000/-

The total claim of compensation
would, therefore, work out to a figure of
Rs.3,74,400 + Rs.70,000 = 4,44,400/-

22. The aforesaid sum of money
would carry simple interest @ 7% per
annum in accordance with Rule 220-A of
the Rules of 1998 from the date of
institution
of
claim
petition
until
realization. However, the sum of money
already deposited (paid or invested in terms
of the impugned award or interim order of
this Court) shall be adjusted.

23. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed with costs throughout. The
impugned award is modified and the
compensation stands enhanced to a sum of
Rs. 4,44,400/- (Rupees Four Lac Forty
Four Thousand Four Hundred only). The
said sum of money shall be payable by the
Corporation. The claimants shall be entitled
to simple interest @ 7% on the sum of
compensation awarded from the date of
institution of the claim petition until
7 All. Smt. Shanti & Ors. Vs. Anil Awasthi @ Anil Kumar Awasthi & Anr.
283
realization. The inter se apportionment of
compensation and the other directions
made by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
----------
(2022)07ILR A283
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 866 of 2011
Connected with
First Appeal From Order Nos. 867 of 2011, 868
of 2011, 869 of 2011, 870 of 2011, & 871 of
2011

Smt. Shanti & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Anil Awasthi @ Anil Kumar Awasthi & Anr.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Balendu Shekhar, Prakash Chandra

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.K. Shukla, Anil Srivastava

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - Sections 163-A, 168 - UP Motor
Vehicles
Rules,
1998
-
Rule-220A(2)(i), 220-A(3), 220-A(3)(iii), 220A(4)
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860
-
Sections 279, 304-A, 427: - Claimants'
Appeals - seeking similar question of
quantum of compensation - six MACP
are filed by claimants against an
accident
in
question
-
awarded
separately - since, common questions
of facts like FIR, Charge sheet, DL, site
plan,
inquest
report
&
insurance
papers,
registration
certificate,
tax
receipts
of
offending
vehicle
and
question of law arises in all the
appeals
are
similar
-
as
such,
connected
&
heard
together
and
decided through a common judgment -
however, the distinguishing features of
each case in the matter of determining
the compensation. (Para - 5)
(B) Civil Law- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section -163-A, 168 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rule-220-A(2)(i), 220-A(3),
220-A(3)(iii), 220-A(4) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304-A & 427: -
Claimants'
Appeals
-
quantum
of
compensation - No cross appeals are filed
- no issue about factum of negligence,
accident, contributory negligence or the
liability of insurers - only single issue of
enhancement of award - in view of law
laid down by the by Apex Court, claimants
are entitled for consideration of their
claim for enhancement of compensation.
(Para 11)

(C) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 163-A, 168 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rule-220-A(2)(i), 220-A(3),
220-A(3)(iii), 220-A(4) - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Sections 279, 304-A & 427 -
Claimants'
Appeals
-
quantum
of
compensation - there are three law points
would be considerable in these appeal
respectively i.e. (i) Whether awarded
compensation is requires scrutiny?, (ii)
Whether the tribunal was right in denying
any
compensation
towards
future
prospects?, (iii) Whether the award of
compensation
under
the
conventional
heads is in accordance with law? -
Determination of all law points - positively
- all appeals are allowed - claimants in
each of the appeals shall be entitled to
enhanced
compensation,
accordingly.
(Para 16, 72)

(D) Civil Law- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section -163-A, 168 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rule-220-A(2)(i), 220-A(3),
220-A(3)(iii), 220-A(4) - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Sections - 279, 304-A & 427 -
Claimants'
Appeals
-
quantum
of
compensation - determination - question
of law regarding future prospects - there
is no scope to doubt that the principle
relating to future prospects are to be
determined in accordance with Rules of
1998 not in accordance with the decision
in Pranay Sethi's Case - as the Rules, 1998
afford better & greater benefits to the
claimants - claimants are entitled to
enhanced
compensation
-
in
their