# Smt. Ram Beti & Anr v. Suresh Chandra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 303 of 1995
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ram-beti-anr-v-suresh-chandra-ors-50229
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 176 - challenge to-enhancement
of claim- deceased died leaving behind his
wife and children-The tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 61,160/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum and
has not granted future loss of income-The
claimants
are
entitled
to
40%
enhancement in wages towards future
prospects, consistent with the UP Rules,
1998-Total compensation would be Rs.
3,32,400/- and rate of interest would be
7.5% from the date of filing the claim
petition till the award and 6% thereafter -
the insurance company shall deposit the
amount within 8 weeks. (Para 1 to 18)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Smt. Ram Beti & Anr. Vs. Suresh Chandra & Ors.
161
no. 3 and fastening the entire liability on
the Insurance Company without granting
the right of recovery to the insurer.

32. In view of the aforesaid, the award
dated 18.11.2021 in so far as it relates to all
the findings including the quantum is
affirmed with the modification that the
Insurance Company shall indemnify the
award and shall be at liberty to recover the
same from the respondent no. 5 who is the
owner
of
the
offending
vehicle
in
accordance with law as provided in
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.
Vs.Nanjappan and Others; (2004) 13 SCC
224. Subject to the aforesaid, the award
dated 18.11.2011 is maintained. The appeal
is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. In
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs. The record of
the Tribunal shall be returned expeditiously.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 161
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 303 of 1995

Smt. Ram Beti & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Suresh Chandra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.K. Saxena, Sri S.C. Kesarwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S. Kumar, Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra,
Sri Swapnil Kumar

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 176 - challenge to-enhancement
of claim- deceased died leaving behind his
wife and children-The tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs. 61,160/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum and
has not granted future loss of income-The
claimants
are
entitled
to
40%
enhancement in wages towards future
prospects, consistent with the UP Rules,
1998-Total compensation would be Rs.
3,32,400/- and rate of interest would be
7.5% from the date of filing the claim
petition till the award and 6% thereafter -
the insurance company shall deposit the
amount within 8 weeks. (Para 1 to 18)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. NICL Vs Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) LawSuit
SC 1093

2. Smt. Sarla Verma Vs DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121

3. NICL Vs Pranay Sethi (2014) 4 TAC 637 SC

4. Smt. Sarla Verma Vs DTC (2009) 2 TAC 677
SC

5. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & anr.. Vs Shyam
Kishore Murmu & anr. (2021) 4 TAC SC

6. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC
442

7. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs OICL (2007) 2
GLH 291

8. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI &
ors.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the
appellants has challenged the judgment and
order dated 12.12.1994/14.12.1994 passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Etah (hereinafter
referred to as ''Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.
115 of 1992 (Smt. Ram Beti and another
Vs. Suresh Chandra and others) awarding a
sum of Rs. 61,160/- as compensation to the
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimants/appellants with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of filing
the claim petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident
Claim Petition before the Tribunal for
claiming the compensation under Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Ram
Bilas in a road accident with the averments
that on 13.1.1991, Ram Bilas-deceased was
going to his village from village Ambari on
his bicycle. When he reached at village
Kathauli, a scooter no. U.P. 82 2296, which
was
being
driven
very
rashly
and
negligently by its driver. The aforesaid
scooter being driven in such a manner
dashed deceased's bicycle. In this accident,
deceased sustained very serious injuries
and died during the treatment in the
hospital on 14.1.1991.

4.
Aggrieved
mainly
with
the
compensation awarded, the appellants have
preferred this appeal.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence has attained finality as
neither the Insurance Company nor the owner
of the vehicle has disputed the same even in
oral submissions. The driver of the said
vehicle was having valid and effective
driving licence on the date of accident is also
a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and
there being no breach of policy condition is a
finding, which has attained finality. The only
issue to be decided is the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased will
have to be Rs.2,000/- per month to which
40% will have to be added towards future
loss of income and 1/2 will have to be
deducted for personal expenses. It is also
submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants
that
learned
Tribunal
has
awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- for medical
expenses. It is further stated that the
learned Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head of non pecuniary
damages. The deceased was 25 years of age
at the time of accident, hence, the
multiplier applicable would be 18. In
support of the above arguments, learned
counsel for the appellant has relied on the
decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017
LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121.

7. As against this, learned counsel for
the respondent-Insurance Company has
contended
that
the
quantum
of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper. The income which is asked
for cannot be granted in absence of any
evidence to prove the same. It is also
submitted that in the year of accident, the
multiplier was that of the parents to be
applied.

8. This Court cannot accept the
submission of learned counsel for the
respondent that amount is just and proper
and the multiplier was that of the parents to
be applied. The law on the point is now
well settled that multiplier would be that of
the deceased.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the income of the deceased can
be considered to be Rs.2,000/- per month
i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. The deceased
5 All. Smt. Ram Beti & Anr. Vs. Suresh Chandra & Ors.
163
will fall within the category of self
employed and his age was in the age
bracket of 25-30 years at the time of
accident, hence, 40% of income shall be
added towards future loss of income and
1/2 shall be deducted for personal
expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court
in National Insurance Company vs.
Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)].
Keeping in view the age of the deceased,
multiplier of 18 will be admissible in the
light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2)
TAC 677 (SC)].

10. As far as non-pecuniary damages
are concerned, the Tribunal has not
awarded any sum towards non pecuniary
damages. The parents/claimants shall be
entitled to get Rs.30,000/- for loss of
consortium in the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs.
Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [2021
(4) TAC (SC)].

11. Hence, the total amount of
compensation, in view of the above
discussions, payable to the appellantsclaimants is being computed herein below:

(i) Annual Income : Rs.24,000/-
Per annum (Rs.2,000 X 12)

(ii) Percentage towards future
prospects 40% : Rs. 9,600/-

(iii) Total income : Rs. 24,000/- +
Rs.9,600/- = Rs. 33,600/-

(iv) Income after deduction 1/2:
Rs.33,600/- - Rs.16,800/- = Rs.16,800/-

(v) Multiplier applicable : 18

(vi) Loss of Dependency : Rs.
16,800/- X 18 = Rs.3,02,400/-

(vii) Amount under non pecuniary
head : Rs. 30,000/-

(viii)
Total
compensation
:
Rs.3,02,400/-
+
Rs.30,000/-
=
Rs.3,32,400/-

12. The rate of interest 12% cannot be
granted on enhanced amount. The rate of
interest would be 7.5% from the date of
filing the claim petition till the award and
6% thereafter.

13. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount within 8 weeks from today. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

14. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount
be paid to the claimants and no amount be
kept in fixed deposit.

15. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
firstdeduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of investment
is not passed because applicants /claimants
are neither illiterate or rustic villagers.

16. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total amount
of interest, accrued on the principal amount
of compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance company/owner is/are entitled to
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deduct appropriate amount under the head
of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s
194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimant to withdraw the amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income- Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of
2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another) while disbursing the
amount. The said decision has also been
reiterated by High Court Gujarat in
R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of
2021 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
decided on 5.4.2022.

17. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly
in the above petition by the tribunal as per
the
modification
made
herein.
The
Tribunals in the State shall follow the
direction
of
this
Court
as
herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and judgment of A.V. Padma
(supra). The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.

18. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As
long period has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 164
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 404 of 2001

Smt. Bindu Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Hari Pratap Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amaresh Sinha, Sri Abubhav Sinha

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 173 - Tribunal rejected the claim
on the ground that claimant lodged FIR
after 2 and a half month, witnesses are
husband and wife and also belies medicolegal evidence-Rather, the medico-legal
evidence supports the claimant's case as
the injuries were noticed to be fresh , the
report is absolutely compatible with the
initial and emergency examination in the
case of a motor accident-The claimant's
case would not stand discredited, because
during treatment some other disease or
problem was discovered-Merely because
another injured on board the vehicle
alongside the claimant has not been
produced, would not render the claimant's
case suspect, where by evidence aliunde it
is proven-No reason to draw an adverse
inference
against
the
claimant-
The
matter remitted back to Tribunal to decide
afresh.(Para 1 to 32)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

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

This is a claimant's appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,