# Smt. Ranjana Rawat v. M/S Flora & Fauna Housing & Land Dev. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-08
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1016 of 2015
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ranjana-rawat-v-m-s-flora-fauna-housing-land-dev-pvt-ltd-ors-45242
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Purpose of
compensation under the Act - Is fully and
adequately restore the aggrieved to the
position prior to the accident - The award
must
be
just,
which
means
that
compensation
should,
to
the
extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the
claimant to the position prior to the
accident - Object of awarding damages is
to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so,
in a
fair, reasonable and equitable
manner. (Para 16)

B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Appeal -
Section
173
-
Determination
of
Compensation - Tribunal denied future
prospects to the claimants - Contrary to
the Principle settled by a Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case - Issue of addition of non-pecuniary
damages towards loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses is also
settled - Tribunal erred in assuming the
notional income of the deceased and in
not awarding any amount towards future
prospects and conventional heads - Held,
the
compensation
awarded
by
the
Tribunal needs to be determined again.
(Para 18, 20, 21 & 22)
First Appeal From Order allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

1 All. Dharmendra Yadav Vs. Girish Kumar Sahni
1487
(2020)1ILR 1486

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

FAFO No. 1016 of 2015

Smt. Ranjana Rawat ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Flora & Fauna Housing & Land Dev. Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shakeel Ahmad Ansari, Amit Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Inder Preet Singh Chadha

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Purpose of
compensation under the Act - Is fully and
adequately restore the aggrieved to the
position prior to the accident - The award
must
be
just,
which
means
that
compensation
should,
to
the
extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the
claimant to the position prior to the
accident - Object of awarding damages is
to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so,
in a
fair, reasonable and equitable
manner. (Para 16)

B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Appeal -
Section
173
-
Determination
of
Compensation - Tribunal denied future
prospects to the claimants - Contrary to
the Principle settled by a Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case - Issue of addition of non-pecuniary
damages towards loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses is also
settled - Tribunal erred in assuming the
notional income of the deceased and in
not awarding any amount towards future
prospects and conventional heads - Held,
the
compensation
awarded
by
the
Tribunal needs to be determined again.
(Para 18, 20, 21 & 22)
First Appeal From Order allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Resha
Devi & Ors, 2017 (3) ALJ 199

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Meena
Devi, FAFO No. 2390 of 2015

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Lal,
FAFO No. 2010 of 2016

4. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343

5. Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan and others,
(2013) 9 SCC 65

6. Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2018) 15 SCC 654

7. Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager,
(2011) 14 SCC 639

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.)

1. List has been revised. Service on
respondent no. 1 has been dispensed with.
No one appears on behalf of respondent
nos. 2 & 3 in spite of sufficient service.

2. This first appeal from order under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short ''Act'), has been filed by
Smt. Ranjana Rawat, the wife of Brijesh
Kumar
(the
deceased),
against
the
judgment and award dated 31.07.2015
passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No. VII, Faizabad in Claim Petition
No.101 of 2014, (Smt. Ranjana Rawat v
M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing and Land
Development Private Limited and others),
seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. On 04.03.2014, at about 5 p.m., a
truck bearing Registration No. UP 22T
1211 owned by M/s Flora and Fauna
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Housing and Land Development Private
Limited (respondent no. 1) and driven by
Santosh Kumar (respondent no. 2) dashed
against
a
tractor
trolley
bearing
Registration No. UP 51F 1948. The
accident took place near Banveerpur
crossing on National Highway 28. As a
result of the said accident, Brijesh Kumar,
Vijay Kumar, Gullan alias Ajay Kumar
and Rajit Ram sustained grievous injuries.
All the injured persons were taken to
District Hospital, Faizabad, where Vijay
Kumar
died
during
treatment.
The
deceased was referred to Trauma Centre,
Lucknow
and
during
treatment
at
Lucknow, he too died in the intervening
night of 04/05.03.2014.

4. Smt. Ranjana Rawat, the claimantappellant, claiming herself to be the wife
of the deceased, filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Act. Through the
claim petition, the appellant claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs 19,21,000/-
, alongwith interest @ 14% per annum.
She pleaded that the accident was caused
due to the rash and negligent driving on
the part of driver of the truck owned by
respondent no. 1. At the time of his death,
the deceased was 25 years old and was a
mason and a driver of a L.M.V. earning Rs
6,000/- per month. Kamlau (respondent
no.3), the father of the deceased was
impleaded as an opposite party in the
claim petition.

5.
In
their
written
statement
respondent nos. 1 & 2, the owner and
driver of the truck, denied the averments
made in the claim petition. It was inter alia
stated by them that the alleged accident
did not take place with the truck bearing
Registration No. UP 22T 1211. They
stated that the driver of the truck was a
skilled driver who had a valid and
effective
driving
licence.
They
additionally mentioned that the said truck
was insured with the New India Assurance
Company Ltd and hence, the insurance
company would be liable to pay the
compensation, if any. Respondent no. 4,
the insurance company, also denied the
averments made in the claim petition in its
written statement.

6. Respondent no. 3, the father of the
deceased, in his written statement, denied
the
right
of
the
claimant
to
get
compensation by alleging that the claimant
was not married to the deceased and did
not live in his house. He claimed that
being the father of the deceased, he was
entitled to get the compensation.

7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, framed as many as
five issues. In support of the claim
petition, the appellant examined herself as
PW 1 and Ranjit Ram as PW 2. The
appellant also filed documentary evidence
in support of her case. The respondents did
not examine any witnesses in defence and
also did not file any documentary
evidence.

8. The Tribunal, after analyzing the
oral and documentary evidence on record,
and after considering the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, repelled the contention advanced
on behalf of respondent no. 3 that the
appellant was not the legally wedded wife
of the deceased and was not entitled to
compensation. The Tribunal further held
that it was a case of composite negligence
and relying upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of T.O. Antony v.
Karvarnan, (2008) 3 SCC 748, held that
the petition was maintainable against the
offending truck.
1 All. Smt. Ranjana Rawat Vs. M/S Flora & Fauna Housing & Land Dev.Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1489

9. The Tribunal held that the
deceased was an unskilled labourer and in
the absence of any documentary evidence
on record assumed the notional income of
the deceased as Rs 3,000/- per month. It
was also determined that the deceased was
married to the appellant and his age was
between 25 to 30 years. The Tribunal held that
the appellant, as well as respondent no. 3, the
father of the deceased, were entitled to
compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal
deducted one-third (1/3rd) towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased,
and determined that the effective loss of
earnings to the family was Rs 2,000/- per
month (or Rs 24,000/- per annum). The
Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 18 and
declared that the dependents were entitled to
get the total compensation of Rs 4,32,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the date of the claim petition. It
apportioned the compensation between the
appellant and respondent no. 3 in the ratio of
70:30. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 were held to be
liable and the insurance company (respondent
no. 4) was directed to pay the aforesaid
compensation to the appellant and respondent
no. 3.

10. Sri Amit Tripathi, learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the notional income awarded to the
appellant is on the lower side. He has
further
submitted
that
the
Tribunal
committed an error of law in not awarding
any amount towards future prospects and
under
the
conventional
heads.
Sri
Inderpreet Singh Chaddha, learned counsel
for respondent no. 4 on the other hand has
supported the impugned order.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the
contesting
parties
and
perused
the
impugned judgment and award as well as
the material brought on record.

12. In so far as the income of the
deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has
held that the deceased was a labourer and
since no positive proof of the income was
lead, relying upon the case of Laxmi Devi
(supra), income of Rs 3,000/- per month
was taken as notional income. The income
assessed by the Tribunal appears to be on
the lower side.

13. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Smt. Resha Devi & Ors, 2017 (3) ALJ
199, a Division Bench of this Court
comprising of Hon'ble Krishna Murari and
Prashant Kumar, JJ, in paragraph nos. 9,
10 & 11 of the said report has held as
under:--

"9. The next submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that income of Rs.100/- per
day presumed by the tribunal is extremely on higher
side is without any force and not liable to be
accepted. Tribunal in recording the said claim has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Laxmi Devi and another v.
Mohammad Tabbar and others, 2008 (2) TAC 394
SC wherein notional income to unskilled labour
was presumed to be Rs.100/- per day. Much water
has flown since 2008. It is a matter of common
knowledge that with the rise in price index, there
has been considerable increase in the wages of
salaried as well as self employed person. The
average income of even a daily labour in 2014
when the accident took place cannot be presumed
to be less than Rs.200/- per day. In our considered
opinion, the tribunal committed a manifest error of
law in presuming the notional income of the
deceased to be Rs.100/- per day.

10. In the case of Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Limited
and others (2012) 6 SCC 421 in paragraph
17 of the reports has observed as under :

"17. Although the wages/income
of those employed in organised sectors has
not registered a corresponding increase
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and has not kept pace with the increase in
the salaries of the government employees
and those employed in private sectors, but
it cannot be denied that there has been
incremental enhancement in the income of
those who are self-employed and even
those engaged on daily basis, monthly
basis of even seasonal basis. We can take
judicial notice of the fact that with a view
to meet the challenges posed by high cost
of living, the persons falling in the latter
category periodically increase the cost of
their labour. In this contest, it may be
useful to give an example of a tailor who
earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If
the cost of living increases and the prices
of essentials go up, it is but natural for him
to increase the cost of his labour. So will
be the cases of ordinary skilled and
unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith,
cobbler, mason, etc.

11. There can be no exact uniform
rule for measuring the value of the human life
and the measure of damages cannot be arrived
at by precise mathematical calculations.
Obviously award of damages would depend
upon the particular facts and circumstances of
the case but the element of fairness in the
amount of compensation so determined is the
ultimate guiding factor. In such view of the
matter, presumption of Rs.100/- per day as
notional income even for a unskilled labour in
the year 2014 appears to us to be frugal and by
no stretch of imagination to be just even the
minimum wages fixed by the State Government
is much higher than that looking to the rise in
cost index. We are of the considered upon that
notional income of an unskilled labour could
not be less than Rs.200/- per day.
(emphasis supplied)

14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Smt. Meena Devi, FAFO No. 2390 of
2015, another Division Bench of this
Court opined as under:-

"So far as the income of the
deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal as
Rs.3000/- per month, is concerned, learned
counsel for the appellant has contended
that even an iota of evidence was not
produced with regard to the income of the
deceased and such the Tribunal erred in
assessing the income of the deceased to be
at Rs.3000/- per month and awarding
future prospects as the deceased was not in
a permanent job. In this connection it is to
be noted that as per the evidence on
record, the accident occurred in the year
2014 and now-a-days, an ordinary mason,
skilled labour or coolie earns Rs.200-300/-
per day and looking to the income as
Rs.3000/- per month assessed by the
Tribunal, it cannot be said that it was on
higher side, rather it was on the lower
side. Further more, looking to the fact that
the deceased might have spent 1/5th of the
income upon him and taking his age
between 35-40 years, as assessed by the
Tribunal, at the time of his death, if the
income is calculated, then the income
assessed was rather on meager side."

(emphasis supplied)

15. Again in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Shyam Lal, FAFO No. 2010 of
2016, this Court has held as under:-

"In so far as the presumption of
Rs.200/- per day as notional income is
concerned, we do find any fault with the
same. It is a matter of common knowledge
that in recent past there has been
considerable increase in the wages and
earning of the employee as well as selfemployed person. Admittedly, the accident
took place on 07.09.2014. A presumption
of notional income of Rs.200/- per day
even for unskilled daily labour can, by no
stretch of imagination, be said to be on the
1 All. Smt. Ranjana Rawat Vs. M/S Flora & Fauna Housing & Land Dev.Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1491
higher side. Thus, we do not find any fault
in the Tribunal presuming the said income
for
determination
of
compensation."
(emphasis supplied)

16. The purpose of compensation under
the Act is to fully and adequately restore the
aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.
The Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
(2011)
1
SCC
343,
explained
"just
compensation" in the following words:-

"5. The provision of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short)
makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to
the extent possible, fully and adequately
restore the claimant to the position prior to
the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered
as a result of wrong done as far as money
can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner."

17. In this case the accident and
death occurred in the year 2014. In view of
the discussions made above, it would be
proper to assess the income of the
deceased as Rs 200/- per day. It is true that
a labourer may not get work every day,
hence the income of the deceased is
assessed as Rs 5,000/- per month.

18. The next question relates to the
addition of future prospects. The Tribunal,
in the present matter, has denied future
prospects to the claimants by relying upon
the judgment in Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan and others, (2013) 9 SCC 65. The
issue regarding future prospects has now
been settled by a Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra). The relevant portion of the said
report is being reproduced below for ready
reference:

"56. The seminal issue is the
fixation of future prospects in cases of
deceased who are self-employed or on a
fixed salary. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)
6 SCC 121, has carved out an exception
permitting the claimants to bring materials
on record to get the benefit of addition of
future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed
any future prospects in respect of the said
category.

57.
Having
bestowed
our
anxious consideration, we are disposed to
think when we accept the principle of
standardisation,
there
is
really
no
rationale not to apply the said principle to
the self-employed or a person who is on a
fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of
actual income at the time of death and not
to add any amount with regard to future
prospects to the income for the purpose of
determination of multiplicand would be
unjust. The determination of income while
computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will
come within the ambit and sweep of just
compensation as postulated under Section
168 of the Act."

and then

"We are inclined to think that
there can be some degree of difference as
regards the percentage that is meant for or
applied to in respect of the legal
representatives who claim on behalf of the
deceased who had a permanent job than a
person who is self-employed or on a fixed
salary. But not to apply the principle of
standardisation on the foundation of
perceived
lack
of
certainty
would
tantamount to remaining oblivious to the
marrows of ground reality. And, therefore,
degree-test is imperative. Unless the
degree-test is applied and left to the parties
to adduce evidence to establish, it would
be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test
has to have the inbuilt concept of
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
percentage. Taking into consideration the
cumulative factors, namely, passage of
time, the changing society, escalation of
price, the change in price index, the
human attitude to follow a particular
pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of
the established income of the deceased
towards future prospects and where the
deceased was below 40 years an addition
of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years would be
reasonable."
(emphasis supplied)

19. In Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 654, the Apex
Court has held as under:-

"6. The learned counsel for the
Insurance Company submitted that in the
absence of actual evidence of income the
principle of adding on account of future
prospects cannot be applied where income
is determined by guesswork.

7. We are of the view that there
cannot be distinction where there is
positive evidence of income and where
minimum
income
is
determined
on
guesswork in the facts and circumstances
of a case. Both the situations stand at the
same footing. Accordingly, in the present
case, addition of 40% to the income
assessed by the Tribunal is required to be
made. The Tribunal made addition of 50%
while the High Court has deleted the
same."
(emphasis supplied)

20. In so far as addition of non
pecuniary
damages
towards
loss
of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses is concerned, this issue has also
been settled in the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra). The relevant portion of the said
report is extracted below:-

"52. ...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 supplied)

21. In view of the foregoing
discussions, it is apparent that the Tribunal
has erred in assuming the notional income
of the deceased as Rs 3,000/- per month
and in not awarding any amount towards
future prospects and conventional heads.
1 All. Smt. Ranjana Rawat Vs. M/S Flora & Fauna Housing & Land Dev.Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1493

22. Thus, in the light of the above
mentioned principles, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal needs to be
determined again. Notional income of the
deceased is assessed as Rs 5,000/- per
month (or Rs 60,000/- per annum).
Considering the principles of dependence,
one-third (1/3rd) of the income of the
deceased is liable to be deducted towards
the amount which he would have spent
upon himself, if he had remained alive.
After deducting one-third from his annual
income towards his personal and living
expenses, his contribution to the family is
assessed as Rs 40,000/- per annum. Since
the age of the deceased was less than 40
years, an addition of 40% of the annual
income should be made on account of
future prospects on the basis of Pranay
Sethi (supra). The annual income of the
deceased would thus be Rs 56,000/-.
Considering the age of the deceased, a
multiplier of 18 is to be applied.
Accordingly, the loss of dependency is
assessed as Rs 10,08,000/-. In addition to
the above, the claimants are also entitled to
Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs
15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs 40,000/-
towards loss of consortium.

23. Thus the total compensation to
which the claimants are entitled is Rs
10,78,000/-
The
compensation
is
accordingly increased from Rs 4,32,000/-
to Rs 10,78,000/-. The increased amount
shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of claim petition.

24. At this juncture, it is relevant to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in
Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager,
(2011) 14 SCC 639, wherein it has been
laid down that in the absence of an appeal
on
behalf
of
the
claimants,
the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal
cannot be enhanced. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of
the judgment are reproduced below:

"7. This principle also flows
from Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of
Civil
Procedure
which
enables
an
appellate court to pass any order which
ought to have been passed by the trial
court and to make such further or other
order as the case may require, even if the
respondent had not filed any appeal or
cross-objections. This power is entrusted
to the appellate court to enable it to do
complete justice between the parties.
Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code can however
be pressed into service to make the award
more effective or maintain the award on
other grounds or to make the other parties
to litigation to share the benefits or the
liability, but cannot be invoked to get a
larger or higher relief. For example, where
the claimants seek compensation against
the owner and the insurer of the vehicle
and the Tribunal makes the award only
against the owner, on an appeal by the
owner challenging the quantum, the
appellate court can make the insurer
jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation, along with the owner, even
though the claimants had not challenged
the non-grant of relief against the insurer.
Be that as it may.

8. Where an appeal is filed
challenging the quantum of compensation,
irrespective of who files the appeal, the
appropriate course for the High Court is
to examine the facts and by applying the
relevant principles, determine the just
compensation.
If
the
compensation
determined by it is higher than the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the High Court will allow the appeal, if it
is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal,
if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if
the compensation determined by the High
1494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court is lesser than the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court
will dismiss any appeal by the claimants
for enhancement, but allow any appeal by
the owner/insurer for reduction. The High
Court cannot obviously increase the
compensation in an appeal
by the
owner/insurer
for
reducing
the
compensation, nor can it reduce the
compensation in an appeal by the
claimants
seeking
enhancement
of
compensation." (emphasis supplied)

25. In the case at hand, the present
appeal has been filed by Smt. Ranjana
Rawat, the claimant-appellant alone. Neither
any appeal has been filed by Kamlau
(respondent no. 3, the father of the deceased)
nor any cross objection has been preferred
by him in the present appeal and, as such, in
view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash
(supra) the compensation awarded to
Kamlau, respondent no. 3 cannot be
enhanced in this appeal which has been filed
only by widow of the deceased.

26. As already mentioned above, the
Tribunal has apportioned the compensation
between the appellant and respondent no. 3 in
the ratio of 70:30. Thus, the appellant would
be entitled to 70% of Rs 10,78,000/- along
with interest as mentioned above, whereas the
respondent no. 3 would be entitled to 30% of
Rs 4,32,000/- along with interest as awarded
by the Tribunal.

27. In view of the above, the appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the extent
indicated above.

28. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1493

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

FAFO No. 1579 of 2016

National Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kamlawati & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Sri Lokesh
Kumar, Sri Rajat Agarwal

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Section
168-A - Claim Petition - Negligence -
Assessment of compensation - Point of
negligence
need
not
be
specifically
established to the ambit claimed by the
insurance company- Finding of Tribunal
on issue no. 1 is just and consistent and
the same need no interference by this
Court - Tribunal has rightly applied
multiplier
of
15
and
assessed
the
compensation - Compensation for loss of
estate; for loss of love and affection; for
funeral expenses and under head of loss
of company of the husband was awarded
- Held, it cannot be said to be either
unreasonable or excessive. (Para 16 & 18)

First Appeal From Order dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This first appeal from order has
been preferred against the judgment and
award dated 29.2.2016 passed in Motor