# Smt. Mamta @ Savita & Ors v. Chaman Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1328
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3373 of 2014
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mamta-savita-ors-v-chaman-kumar-ors-45176
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Compensation - Deduction
towards personal & living expenses -
one-fourth (1/4 th) where the number of
dependant family members is 4 to 6 -
Held - Deceased left behind his wife, his
three minor children and his parents -
Total number of dependants comes to 3.5
unit excluding the father - Tribunal
committed error by deducting 1/3rd
amount towards personal expenses - as it
should have deducted 1/4th amount from
income of the deceased (Para 8)

B. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Future Prospects - Deceased
below 40 yrs - Held - Tribunal failed to
award any compensation towards future
prospects
by
adding
40%
of
the
established income (Para 9)

C. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Compensation - Reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium &
funeral
expenses
is
Rs.
15,000/,
Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively
(Para 9)

First Appeal From Order Partly allowed
(E-5)
List of cases cited :

## Text

1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8,500/- per month or Rs. 1,02,000/- p.a.
By adding 30% towards future prospects
as the deceased was between the age of 40
to 50 years, the deemed gross income of
the deceased would be Rs. 8,500/- + 30%
of Rs. 8,500/- = Rs. 11,050/- per month or
Rs. 1,32,600/- p.a. After deducting 1/5th
amount (i.e. 11,050-2,210) towards the
living and personal expenses of the
deceased, his contribution to the family is
determined as Rs. 8,840/- per month or Rs.
1,06,080/- p.a. By applying the multiplier
of 14, the total loss of dependency is
assessed at Rs. 14,85,120/-. We further
award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- under the
head of loss of consortium and Rs.
15,000/- towards loss of estate. We
accordingly increase the compensation
awarded to the claimants/appellants by the
Tribunal from Rs. 7,89,000/- to Rs.
15,55,120/-. The claimants/appellants shall
further be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. on
the increased amount of compensation
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual payment is made.

29. The appeal is allowed in part.

30. The impugned judgement and
award stand modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove.

31. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1328

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3373 of 2014

Smt. Mamta @ Savita & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Chaman Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Dahma, Sri Navneet Chandra
Tripathi, Sri Ramji Yadav

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Compensation - Deduction
towards personal & living expenses -
one-fourth (1/4 th) where the number of
dependant family members is 4 to 6 -
Held - Deceased left behind his wife, his
three minor children and his parents -
Total number of dependants comes to 3.5
unit excluding the father - Tribunal
committed error by deducting 1/3rd
amount towards personal expenses - as it
should have deducted 1/4th amount from
income of the deceased (Para 8)

B. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Future Prospects - Deceased
below 40 yrs - Held - Tribunal failed to
award any compensation towards future
prospects
by
adding
40%
of
the
established income (Para 9)

C. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Compensation - Reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium &
funeral
expenses
is
Rs.
15,000/,
Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively
(Para 9)

First Appeal From Order Partly allowed
(E-5)
List of cases cited :

1. Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC)

2. National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors 2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC)
2 All. Smt. Mamta @ Savita & Ors. Vs. Chaman Kumar & Ors.
1329
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. This appeal has been filed by
claimants-appellants under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not being
satisfied by judgment and award dated
04.08.2014 passed by Additional District
Judge, Court No. 7/ Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Meerut
in
Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 211 of 2013.

2. Facts as narrated in the judgment
and award are that one Rukesh Kumar,
husband of claimant-appellant no. 1, father
of claimant-appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 and
son of claimant-appellant nos. 5 and 6,
was driver of Truck bearing No. MP 07
HB- 0149. On 24.10.2012 along with one
Santosh, when deceased's truck was
coming from Muzaffar Nagar to Hapur, it
met with an accident at around 4 a.m. in
the morning near Naugaja Peer, PS-
Kharkhauda, District- Meerut with another
Truck bearing No. HR 37 B-2896 coming
from opposite direction. The driver of
truck bearing no. MP 07 HB-0149 died on
the spot, and was aged about 29 years.

3. A claim petition, being MACP No.
211 of 2013 was filed by claimantappellants before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Meerut. The said petition
was contested by owner of Truck No. HR
37 B-2896 and the Insurance Company of
the same truck number. Tribunal found
that there was a contributory negligence on
the part of both the parties and the
deceased Rukesh Kumar who was driving
Truck No. MP 07 HB-0149 contributed
20% to the accident while the negligence
of the other truck driver was of 80%.
Further, Tribunal while deciding issue no.
6 of the impugned judgment awarded
compensation of Rs.5,26,400/- on the basis
that income of deceased, Rukesh Kumar
was Rs.4,500/- per month and after
deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses
and applying the multiplier of 18, as
deceased was aged about 28 years awarded
Rs.6,48,000/-. Further, Rs.5,000/- was
awarded towards as loss of consortium,
Rs.2,500/-
as
funeral
expenses
and
Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The total
amount comes to Rs.6,58,000/-. Out of
which 20% amount was deducted being
contributory negligence of the deceased
thus, the total amount awarded came to
Rs.5,26,400/-.

4. Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants-appellants
submitted that the court below had
wrongly deducted 1/3 towards personal
expenses from income of the deceased and
placed reliance upon the paragraph 14 of
the judgment in case of Smt. Sarla Verma
and
others
vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation and another 2009 (2) T.A.C.
677 (S.C.), in which the Hon'ble Apex
Court had held deductions should be 1/4th
towards personal and living expenses of
deceased in case where there are 4 to 6
dependants in the family. In the present
case, as the deceased is survived by his
wife, three minor children along with his
parents,
thus,
the
total
number
of
dependants left by him are six and as there
are three minors, they will be counted as
1/2 unit. Thus, only 1/4th of the amount
should have been deducted towards his
personal and living expenses in view of
the judgment rendered by Apex Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma (supra).

5. He further submitted that the
Tribunal
had
not
considered
future
prospects and law laid down in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (4) T.A.C.
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
673 (S.C.) that claimants are entitled for
40% addition to the total income of the
deceased toward future prospects. Lastly,
it was contended that the amount awarded
under the heads of loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses was not
kept in line with the judgment of the Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi.

6. We have heard learned counsel for
the claimant-appellants and perused the
material on record.

7. It is not in dispute that alleged incident
took on 24.10.2012 wherein the driver of
Truck No. MP 07 HB-0149, Rukesh Kumar
succumbed to his injuries leaving behind the
claimants-appellants as his legal heirs. The
Tribunal further recorded in the finding that
age of the deceased was 28 years, while
calculating the award deducted 1/3 amount
towards his personal expenses without
calculating the number of dependants of the
deceased.

8. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Apex
Court had held that where number of
dependants in the family were 4 to 6 then 1/4th
amount was to be deducted towards personal
expenses. In the present case, the deceased
Rukesh Kumar had left behind his wife
Mamta, his three minor children and his
parents. The total number of dependants as per
the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarala
Verma (supra) comes to 3.5 unit excluding the
father of the deceased thus, in our view, the
Tribunal committed error by deducting 1/3rd
amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased, as it should have deducted 1/4th
amount from income of the deceased while
calculating the amount of compensation.

9. Secondly, the Tribunal failed to award
any compensation towrads future prospects by
adding 40% of the established income where
the deceased was below 40 years as held in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The third
objection was in relation to loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses which
should have been awarded at the rate of
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively as held by Apex Court in case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).

10. We accordingly proceed to
recalculate the compensation in the light of the
aforesaid principles. As noted above, the actual
salary of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/- per
month or Rs. 54,000/- p.a. By adding 40%
towards future prospects as the deceased was
below 40 years, the deemed gross income of
the deceased would be Rs. 4,500/- + 40% of
Rs. 4,500/- = Rs. 6,300/- per month or Rs.
75,600/- p.a. After deducting 1/4th amount (i.e.
6300 - 1575) towards the living and personal
expenses of the deceased, his contribution to
the family is determined as Rs. 4,725/- per
month or Rs. 56,700/- p.a. By applying the
multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency is
assessed at Rs. 10,20,600/-. We further award a
sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses,
Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of
consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
We
accordingly
increase
the
compensation
awarded
to
the
claimants/appellants by the Tribunal from Rs.
5,26,400/-
to
Rs.
10,90,600/-.
The
claimants/appellants shall further be entitled to
interest @ 7% p.a. on the increased amount of
compensation from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the actual payment is made.
The appeal is allowed in part.

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

12. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.
----------
2 All. Smt. Seema @ Aarju Vs. Ravindra Singh
1331
(2020)02ILR A1331

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

First Appeal No. 69 of 2017

Smt. Seema @ Aarju ...Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Pragya Pandey, Sri Imran Syed

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Gulab Chandra, Sri Hari Manish
Bahadur Sinha, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh

A. Civil Law-Hindu Marriage Act (25 of
1955) - S.13(1)(ia) - Divorce - Cruelty -
specific instances of 'cruelty' - suit for
divorce
on
ground
of
'cruelty'
can
succeed only when specific instances of
'cruelty' are pleaded & proved by plaintiff
- single instance of cruelty by itself is
insufficient to constitute 'cruelty' - Held -
husband
not
pleaded
any
specific
instance of 'cruelty', but only made
general allegations of 'cruelty' - vague
and general allegations are insufficient to
constitute 'cruelty' - Husband not entitled
for decree of divorce (Para 21)

First Appeal allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. Srikant Ram Sajiwan Vs Saroj 2001 (2) DMC 295

2.Kusum Lata Vs Kamta Prasad AIR 1965 All 280

3.Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Smt. Sucheta Narayan
Dastane AIR 1970 Bombay 812

4.Abha Agarwal Vs Sunil Agarwal AIR 2000 All (77)

5.Hanumantha Rao Vs Shamani AIR 1990 SC 1318

6.Mukesh Vs Chanchal 2006 Legal (LE) Delhi 957

7.Neelam Kumar Vs Daya Rani 2010 (13) SCC 298

8.Vishwanath Vs Prakash Chand AIR 1992 ALL 261

9.Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh 2007 (4) SCC 511

10.Navin Kohli Vs Nilu Kohli 2006 (4) SCC 558

11.Anil Kumar Jain Vs Smt. Kalpana Jain 2019 (8) ADJ
1

12.Smt. Sarita Devi Vs Sri Ashok Kumar Singh 2018 (3)
AWC 2328

13.Neelam Kumar Vs Daya Rani 2010 (13) SCC 298

14.Vishwanath Vs Prakash Chand AIR 1992 ALL 261

15.Ravi Kumar Vs Julmi Devi 2010 (4) SCC 476

16.K. Srinivas Rao Vs D. A. Deepa 2013 (5) SCC 226

17.Manish Tyagi Vs Deepak Kumar 2010 (4) SCC 339

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal under
section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1984')
preferred by defendant respondent is to the
judgement dated 30.11.2016 and decree
dated 3.12.2016, passed by Kamlesh
Dubey, Principal Judge, Family Court,
Hapur, whereby Suit No. 468 of 2018
(Ravindra Singh Vs. Seema @ Aarju) filed
by plaintiff-respondent for divorce has
been decreed.

2. We have heard Ms. Pragya
Pandey, learned counsel for defendantappellant
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'appellant') and Mr. Hari Manish Bahadur
Sinha for plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as respondent.