# Smt. Sarita & Ors. /Claimants v. Ankit Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 250
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-23
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sarita-ors-claimants-v-ankit-kumar-ors-45992
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59
of 1988)- Section 166 - Compensation
- Determination - Future Loss of
Income/
Future
prospects
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
compassionate appointment of legal
heir would not preclude the family
from getting the amount under future
loss of income (Para 7)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Section 166 - Compensation -
Death claim - Income of deceased
Rs.17,885/- p.m. - deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased 1/3rd
of income - Multiplier of 15 - Amount
under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
Total
compensation
Rs.
33,19,300/-
awarded with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited. (Para 10, 12)

Partly Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
modification application that fresh Arbitral
Tribunal was constituted without taking
note of the earlier proceedings.

90. The court below rightly after
hearing and considering the objections
under Section 34 of the respondents as well
as the reply of appellant, set aside the
arbitral award dated 21.02.2008.

91. No interference is required in the
order dated 09.09.2013 passed by court
below, the appeal is devoid of merits and is
hereby dismissed.

92. However, parties to bear their own
costs.
----------
(2021)01ILR A250
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2020

BEFORE

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

FAFO No.- 3352 of 2016

Smt. Sarita & Ors. ...Appellants/Claimants
Versus
Ankit Kumar & Ors.
 ...Respondents/Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, Sri Rahul Sahai,
Sri Saurabh Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59
of 1988)- Section 166 - Compensation
- Determination - Future Loss of
Income/
Future
prospects
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
compassionate appointment of legal
heir would not preclude the family
from getting the amount under future
loss of income (Para 7)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Section 166 - Compensation -
Death claim - Income of deceased
Rs.17,885/- p.m. - deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased 1/3rd
of income - Multiplier of 15 - Amount
under non pecuniary heads : Rs.1,00,000/-
Total
compensation
Rs.
33,19,300/-
awarded with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited. (Para 10, 12)

Partly Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation
(2009) 6 SCC 121

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

3. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishore Dan & ors.
2013 ACJ 1441

4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Hoti Lal & anr. F.A.F.O. No. 1302 of 2006, dated
31.1.2018

5. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johat &
ors. 2019(2)TAC705 (S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal in
narrow compass is that on 5.11.2014,
1 All. Smt. Sarita & Ors. Vs. Ankit Kumar & Ors.
251
husband of appellant no.1, namely, Sarita
along with her brother, namely, Pravin
riding
on
his
motorcycle
bearing
Registration No. DL7SBW 8095 was going
to his village Asawar, Police Station
Gulawati from Delhi and when driver,
namely, Ankit driving a van bearing
Registration No. UP 16 BT 8799 rashly and
negligently dashed the said motorcycle on
account of which Raj Kumar sustained
severe injuries. He was rushed to district
hospital where he breathed his last.

3. The claimants (dependents of the
deceased) approached the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Court No.9, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal' by way of filing M.A.C.P.
No.174 of 2015 claiming compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 15%.

4. The Tribunal by way of impugned
judgment and award dated 3.9.2016 awarded a
sum of Rs.21,51,140/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing
claim petition till date of payment. Being
dissatisfied, the claimants filed present appeal
challenging the said award.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is
not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not
challenged the liability imposed on them. The
only issue to be decided is, the quantum of
compensation awarded.

6. I have perused the Judgment and award
impugned herein. Submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as submissions
of learned counsel for the respondent are heard
at length and are considered.

7. The submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants as well as
learned counsel for the respondent are
heard at length and are considered.
Learned Tribunal has evaluated that for the
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- there would be no tax
to be deducted then the Tribunal, he has
total amount of income and deducts 10% as
tax which it could not have done. The
income of the deceased as calculated was
Rs.17,885/- and that is

7. The income of deceased would be
Rs.17,855/- minus tax to be deducted. The
appellant does not seek enhancement of
salary amount and restricts his claim to
Rs.17,855/- as decided by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that The Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head of future loss of
income in spite of the judgment of Apex
Court rendered in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned
counsel could not point out that Judgment
of Sarla Verma (supra) and subsequent
Judgment of Apex Court rendered in
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 1050, would not apply to
the facts of this case. The Tribunal
deducted 1/3rd of the income, i.e., Rs.
5,961/- towards personal expenses of the
deceased,
which,
according
to
the
appellants, should be 1/4th . The same is
vehemently opposed by Sri Srivastava and
this Court is also in agreement with the
submission of Sri Srivastava that it cannot
be 1/4th but 1/3rd only and, thus, the same
is maintained. Multiplier of 15 is also in
consonance with the decision rendered in
Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi
(supra), which calls for no modification.
As far as amount towards non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.15,000/- which calls for
interference as looking to the Judgment of
Pranay
Sethi
(supra),
it
should
be
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.70,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- for every
year, hence, lump sum amount would be
Rs.30,000/-, and, thus, consolidated amount
towards it would come to total of
Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. The learned Tribunal has evaluated
that for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, there
would be no tax deduction then the
Tribunal considers total amount of income
and deducts 10% as tax which could not
have been done. Income of the deceased as
calculated was Rs.17,885/- and that is how
the Tribunal has considered the amount.
However, the amount of Rs.17,885/- will
have to be considered. The finding of fact
of the Tribunal is that son of the deceased
has been given employment and, therefore,
there is no question of addition of future
income. The Tribunal could not have done
this. The reason is employment and the
income in employment would be because
of the service which the son would do.
Compensation is for the loss of the
deceased. The decision of the Tribunal on
this aspect cannot sustain because the Apex
Court in catena of decisions laid down that
the appointment of legal heir would not
preclude the family from getting the
amount under future loss of income. I am
supported in my view by the decisions,
namely, Vimal Kanwar & others versus
Kishore Dan and others, 2013 ACJ 1441
and also in F.A.F.O. No. 1302 of 2006,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Hoti Lal and another, decided on
31.1.2018. Non-addition of future loss of
income cannot be made applicable. The
Judgment of the Apex Court in K.R.
Madhusudhan
and
others
Vs.
Administrative Officer and another, 2011
(4) SCC 689, lays down the principle for
deciding future prospects of a salaried
person which also nowhere suggests that on
death of salaried person if family is
benefited by way of retirement benefits or
death benefits, the same should not be
considered.
Hence,
the
compensation
would have to be recomputed.

7. Hence, thecompensation payable to
the appellants in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is
computed herein below

i. Income: Rs.17,885/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects :50% namely Rs.8942.5/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 17,885+
8942.5= Rs.26827.5

iv. Income after deduction of
1/3th : Rs. 17,885/-

v. Annual income : Rs.17,885 x
12 = Rs.2,14,620/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 15

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.2,14,620 x 15 = Rs.32,19,300/-

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

ix. Total compensation : Rs.
33,19,300/-

8. 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
Johat 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
1 All. Raghubir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
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."

9. 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 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.

10. The Tribunal be sent this order so
that in future, it will remain vigilant while
considering motor accident claims for death
of a salaried person.

11. This Court is thankful to Sri Vijay
Prakash Mishra and Sri Saurabh Srivastava,
learned counsel for getting this old matter
disposed of during this pandemic.
----------
(2021)01ILR A253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA, J.

Writ C No. 10518 of 2013

Raghubir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, Sri Shiv Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri G.P. Gupta, Sri Satyam Singh

(A) Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Section 4 - Publication of
preliminary notification and power of
officers
thereupon,
Section
6
-
Declaration that land is required for a
public purpose , Section 11- A - period
shall be which an award within made ,
Section
30(1)
-
Dispute
as
to
apportionment
,
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)
- Land acquisition process under Act
No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have
lapsed in certain cases.

Writ
petition
filed
for
declaring
the
impugned notifications under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to be invalid and to
quash the consequential award given by the
respondents - ground - entire proceedings
shall be deemed to have been lapsed in
terms
of
Section
11-A
of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
-
amount
of
compensation as determined under the
award has not been deposited in terms of
Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - consequential award also would be a
nullity as the petitioner, even though
having been dispossessed is entitled to
regain the possession - identical notification
- quashed by High Court - connected
petitions upheld by the Apex Court. (Para -
2,3)

HELD:- No material so as to establish that
the
amount
(compensation)
has
been
deposited in the Court and has been
disbursed to the petitioner under the award
dated 31st October, 2002 . Consequently,
the writ petition deserves to be allowed on
the short ground of the proceedings having
lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. (Para -16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-