# Smt. Prem Lata Baghel & Ors v. Union Of India & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 914
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2861 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-prem-lata-baghel-ors-v-union-of-india-anr-48261
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Accidental death-no loss of income grantedmultiplier of 13 applied-funeral expenses, loss of
estate,
loss
of
consortium
on
pecuniary
damages added -Award modified.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same rate as awarded by the Tribunal, but
from the date the claim petition was
instituted. Any sum of money, already paid
under the award or in terms of the interim
orders passed in this appeal, shall be
adjusted.

41. Out of the total sum of
compensation
payable,
the
sum
of
Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium
shall be set apart and paid exclusively to
Smt. Jiuti Devi, claimant-appellant no.1,
together with the proportionate interest
accrued on the said sum. Out of the balance
of the total compensation payable, Smt.
Jiuti Devi, claimant-appellant no.1 shall be
entitled to and receive 70% whereas the
balance 30% shall be divided equally
amongst claimant-appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4.
The sum of compensation to be so divided
between
the
claimant-appellants
shall
include the accrued interest on the sum of
compensation
payable.
It
is
further
provided that the entire compensation
payable to the claimant-appellants, shall be
paid into their respective bank accounts by
the Tribunal upon realization through
crossed Bank Instruments, drawn in the
name of each individual claimant-appellant.
The
compensation
to
be
distributed
amongst
the
claimant-appellants,
as
directed, shall include the sum earlier
invested under orders of the Tribunal. Any
sum of money, already received by the
claimant-appellants,
shall
be
proportionately adjusted.

42. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed in part. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is modified and
enhanced in terms hereinabove directed.

43. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)03ILR A914
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2861 of 2008
AND
First Appeal From Order No. 3097 of 2010

Smt. Prem Lata Baghel & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.K. Pal, Sri R.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Accidental death-no loss of income grantedmultiplier of 13 applied-funeral expenses, loss of
estate,
loss
of
consortium
on
pecuniary
damages added -Award modified.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., (2013) LawSuit (SC) 1093

2. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corp. &
anr., 2009 ACJ 1298

3. 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.)

1. These two appeals filed against the
same judgment dated 29.5.2008, passed by
3 All. Smt. Prem Lata Baghel & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
915
MACT/Additional District Judge, FTC-3,
Firozabad in MAC No.205 of 2004
(Smt.Premlata Baghel and another vs.
Union of India and another) for which
learned
Tribunal
passed
award
for
Rs.6,00,914/- with 6% per annum rate of
interest.

2. One FAFO bearing No.2861 of
2008 is filed on behalf of claimants for
enhancement amount of award of fine and
the second FAFO bearing No.3097 of 2010
has been filed on behalf of Union of India
for setting aside the impugned judgment.

3. Heard Shri R.K.Srivastava, learned
Advocate, holding brief of Shri S.K.Pal,
learned counsel for the appellant in FAFO
No.2861 of 2008, Shri Manoj Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in
FAFO No.3097 of 2010 and perused the
record.

4. Brief facts of the case giving rise to
these appeals are that claimants filed a
motor accident claim petition against Union
of India for the death of Bhup Singh
Baghel, who was Advocate in Allahabad
High Court and District Court Firozabad. It
is averred in petition that on 22.4.2004 at
about 4:15 p.m., the deceased was going to
his residence by rickshaw. When he
reached near Indira Gandhi Crossing Civil
Lines, a Military Truck bearing No.99-D124834-ACLI-45 came from opposite side,
which was being driven rashly and
negligently by its driver and hit the
rickshaw in which the deceased was
travelling. Due to the impact of accident,
deceased fell on the ground and sustained
fatal injuries due to which he died. Union
of India filed written statement and denied
the factum of accident by the aforesaid
Military Truck and it is contended that the
rickshaw in which the deceased was
travelling overturned the rickshaw. The
aforesaid truck was passing through that
place and for helping the injured/deceased,
the driver of the aforesaid truck put him in
the truck and carried to the hospital.
Subsequently, claimants involved the truck
falsely in order to claim the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the Union of
India submitted that the aforesaid vehicle
was not involved in the said accident. The
driver of the truck was not named in the
first information report. Learned counsel
further submitted that it was a matter of
chance that when the deceased fell on the
ground by overturning the rickshaw, the
truck in question was passing-by. He next
submitted that the driver of the truck and
other
Military-personnel,
who
was
travelling in the truck are produced before
the Tribunal as DW1, DW2 and DW3. All
have said in their respective statements that
when their truck reached to the spot, a man
was lying on the ground and on the request
of nearby people, they put him in the truck
and got admitted in the hospital in order to
save his life, but the aforesaid truck was
falsely implicated and involved in this
matter just to claim the compensation.
Learned counsel further submitted that
there is no log-book entry of the truck,
which could show that the truck was plied
at the time of accident.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the
claimants submitted that against the driver
of the aforesaid truck, charge-sheet has
been filed. On the basis of evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal has rightly
held that the truck was involved in the
accident.

7. The contention of learned counsel
for the Union of India that first information
report was lodged against unknown person
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the driver of the truck in question is not
named cannot be accepted at all because it
is not sine qua non that the person, who
filed the FIR should mention the name of
the driver of the vehicle rather it is not
expected that the complainant/informant
must know the name of the driver of the
vehicle. It is more than enough even if
number of the vehicle is mentioned in the
FIR. It is also pertinent to note that
Investigating Officer after completion of
investigation filed charge-sheet against the
driver of the said truck. The rickshaw
puller/owner, in which the deceased was
travelling was the best witness of this
accident. He was produced by the claimants
as PW5, wherein he has stated in his
statement that deceased was travelling in
his rickshaw, which was dashed by the
aforesaid truck due to which the deceased
fell on the ground and the wheel of the
truck ran over him. He has also stated that
truck was stopped by the crowed gathered
on the spot and his rickshaw was also
damaged in the accident. This witness is an
independent witness having no personal
interest in the matter. Hence, this plea of
Union of India is not tenable that a truck in
question was not involved in the accident.
One more argument is placed by Union of
India that rickshaw puller was not made
party to the petition, but we do not impress
with this argument as rickshaw puller is not
a tort-feasor and, therefore, non-joining of
the rickshaw puller makes no difference.
Consequently,
in
view
of
above
observations, the appeal preferred by Union
of India is liable to be dismissed.

8. Now we come to the issue of
compensation as awarded by learned
Tribunal. In this regard, learned counsel for
the claimant submitted that award passed
by the Tribunal is on lower side and no
amount is awarded towards the future loss
of income. It is also submitted that grant of
non-pecuniary damage is also on the lower
side and the Tribunal has awarded only 6%
rate of interest, which should have been
higher.

10. No other argument was placed by
the claimants on the issue of amount of
compensation.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the
Union of India opposed the arguments
placed by learned counsel for the claimants
and submitted that Tribunal has made
correct assessment of the income of the
deceased and sufficient compensation has
been awarded in accordance with law.
Therefore, it needs no interference by this
Court.

12. Perusal of the record shows that
income of the deceased is assessed as
Rs.63,566/- per annum by the Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal has arrived at this
income on the basis of average of three
years income as shown in Income Tax
Returns of the deceased, which is not
disputed by the learned counsel for the
Union of India and this income is justified
also keeping in view the income shown in
ITRs of the deceased, but learned Tribunal
has not granted any sum towards loss of
income. As the deceased was 46 years old,
therefore, according to the direction of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2013)
LawSuit (SC) 1093, 25% shall be added
towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/3 of the income
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Keeping in view the fact that there were
four dependants of the deceased and out of
them one dependant was minor, multiplier
of 13 is applied, which is in consonance
with the judgment of Apex Court in Sarla
3 All. Smt. Prem Lata Baghel & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
917
Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298.
Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for loss
of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- for loss
of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for funeral
expenses, which are, according to us, are
on the lower side as per the judgment of
Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

13. Claimants shall be entitled to get
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Apart from
it, the wife of the deceased shall be entitled to
get Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. These
non-pecuniary damages shall have incremental
effect @ 10% every three years. Hence we
award a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in
the head of non-pecuniary damages. Therefore,
the total compensation payable to the claimants
as per observations made by above is computed
herein below:

A. Annual Income : Rs.63,566/- per
annum

B. Amount towards future prospects
@ 25 % : Rs.15,891/-

C. Total Income : Rs.79,457/-

D. Income after deduction 1/3 :
Rs.52,972/-

E. Multiplier applicable :13

F. Total Loss of Dependency :
Rs.6,88,636/-

G. Amount under non-pecuniary
heads : Rs.1,00,000/-

H. TOTAL COMPENSATION :
Rs.7,88,636/-

14. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the
same had been too high a rate in
comparison
to
what
is
ordinarily
envisaged in these matters. The High
Court,
after
making
a
substantial
enhancement
in
the
award
amount,
modified the interest component at a
reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that
allowed by High Court."

15. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 9% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

16. 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 12 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.

17. Consequently, the appeal of
Union of India bearing FAFO No.3097 of
2010 is dismissed and the appeal filed by
claimants bearing FAFO No.2861 of 2008
is partly allowed.
----------
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)03ILR A918
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3591 of 2014

United India Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Dixit & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri A.
Verma, Sri V.C. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, Sri Amit Kumar
Verma

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Finding of Tribunal as to functional disability
arising from certified permanent disability of 50
%-Tribunal to consider award of compensation
under head of future prospectus, loss under
head of pain, suffering and trauma, future
medical expenses.

Appeal allowed partly. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shri Ram Kushwaha Vs U.P. State Sugar
Corporation Ltd. through General Manager, 2015
(2) ADJ 578

2. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & anr., (2011) 1
SCC 343

3. N. Manjegowda Vs Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 584

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

5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680
6. Jagdish Vs Mohan & ors., (2018) 4 SCC 571

7. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand & ors., (2020) 4 SCC
413
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance
Company, questioning the judgment and
award of Mr. Gopal Kulshreshtha, the
Additional
District
Judge,
Court
No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kanpur Nagar dated 16.09.2014, awarding
compensation to the claimant-respondent
for the injuries sustained by him in a motor
accident.

2. Mr. Sanjay Dixit, along with his
friend, Jawahar Lal, was proceeding on
foot, according to rule of the road, on the
left-hand-side from Ram Narayan Bazar to
Phool Bagh, located in District Kanpur
Nagar on 23.09.2013 at about half past
eleven in the night hours. As the two had
traversed a small distance beyond the Baba
Sweet House, a Maruti Car bearing
Registration No. UP 78 AB 7211, that is
said to have been driven very fast and
negligently by its driver, came up behind
them and hit the two on the rear side. Both
Sanjay Dixit and his friend sustained
grievous injuries. The passers-by, that
include one Kanhaiya Lal and another Anil
Kumar, amongst many others, called alarm
and
made
efforts
to
apprehend
the
offending vehicle. The driver, however,
sped away and escaped. The members of
the public present, nevertheless, noted
down the registration number of the
offending vehicle. The Police reached the
spot. The members of the public and the
Police, together conveyed Sanjay Dixit and
his friend Jawahar Lal for medical aid to a
certain K.P.M. Hospital, where they were
admitted. The two were administered first
aid there. Mr. Sanjay Dixit, who has