# Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr v. Ismail Khan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 264
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-12
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 2482 of 2003
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-urmila-chaturvedi-anr-v-ismail-khan-ors-50416
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections 166, 168 & 173- enhancement of
compensation-age
of
deceaseddetermination-Deceased
who
had
not
completed age of 31 years and about two
months shy of that age as per High School
Certificate-He has to be accepted as 30
years old-Applied multiplier of 17 for age
bracket of 26-30 years as laid down in
Sarla Verma case-Therfore, Tribunal erred
in adopting a multiplier of 12, which ought
to be 17 -Rule 220-A(3) is applicable
retrospectively
to
an
accident
that
happened much before amendment-The
Rule 220-A(3) provides for addition of
50% of deceased income towards future
prospects- Thus, The award passed by the
Tribunal is modified and the compensation
awarded enhanced to Rs.8,35,000/-. The
af sum of money shall carry simple
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of institution of the claim
petition, until realization.(Para 1 to 31)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,952 of 42,635. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39952 for what follows._

264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
)
Annual Income - 50%
deduction
towards
personal expenses of
the deceased = 5400027000
(v)
Total
Dependency
=
Annual Dependency x
Applied Multiplier =
27000x18
= 48600
0
(vi
)
Claimants' entitlement
towards
conventional
heads = Loss of Estate
+ Funeral Expenses +
dependents'
Consortium
=15000+15000+40000x
2
= 11000
0
The
total
compensation
would therefore, work out
to a figure of Rs. 486000+
Rs. 110000
= 59600
0
Less
50%
of
the
compensation
apportioned
to the share of the UPSRTC
settled in the Lok Adalat
= 596000/2
= 29800
0

48. In the result, this appeal is
allowed in part. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded and payable by the
owner is enhanced to Rs. 2,98,000/-. The
aforesaid sum of money shall be payable in
the first instance by the Insurers with
liberty to recover from the owner through a
miscellaneous application to be made
before the Tribunal. The said sum of
money shall carry simple interest at the rate
of 7% per annum from the date of
institution of the claim petition, until
realization. Any sum of money already
deposited with the Tribunal by the owner,
pursuant to the impugned award, shall be
adjusted against the award.

49. The inter se apportionment of
compensation ordered by the Tribunal is set
aside and substituted by a direction that out
of the total compensation, held payable to
the claimants, the minor claimant shall be
entitled to the whole of it, except a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (50% of the filial consortium),
which shall be payable to the claimant,
Hamidunnisha. The sum of Rs.10,000/-
directed to be paid to the claimant, Abdul
Khaliq, if already paid, shall be refunded
with interest @ 7% per annum to the minor
claimant. Likewise, the sum of Rs.25,000/-
payable
to
the
claimant,
Smt.
Hamidunnisha, if paid, shall be refunded to
the minor claimant with interest at the same
rate, subject to the condition that a sum of
Rs.20,000/-, in the event of refund shall be
adjusted in favour of the claimant, Smt.
Hamidunnisha.

50. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 264
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2023

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 2482 of 2003

Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Ismail Khan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri M.P. Sarraf, Sri Gulrez Khan, Sri
Kartikeya Saran, Sri Pervez Husain Khan,
Sri Satish Chandra Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Jyotsna Srivastava, Sri S.D. Ojha, Sri
Arvind Kumar, Sri J.H. Khan
7 All. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Ismail Khan & Ors.
265
A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections 166, 168 & 173- enhancement of
compensation-age
of
deceaseddetermination-Deceased
who
had
not
completed age of 31 years and about two
months shy of that age as per High School
Certificate-He has to be accepted as 30
years old-Applied multiplier of 17 for age
bracket of 26-30 years as laid down in
Sarla Verma case-Therfore, Tribunal erred
in adopting a multiplier of 12, which ought
to be 17 -Rule 220-A(3) is applicable
retrospectively
to
an
accident
that
happened much before amendment-The
Rule 220-A(3) provides for addition of
50% of deceased income towards future
prospects- Thus, The award passed by the
Tribunal is modified and the compensation
awarded enhanced to Rs.8,35,000/-. The
af sum of money shall carry simple
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of institution of the claim
petition, until realization.(Para 1 to 31)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gyan Chand Jain & ors. Vs Permanand & ors.
(2003) 1 TAC 490

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

3. Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130

4. National Ins. Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680

5. New India Assur. Co. Ltd Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 822

6. Sushil Kumar & ors. Vs M/s. Sampark Lojastic
Pvt. Ltd & ors. (2017) 35 LCD 1311

7. P.O. Meera & anr..Vs Ananda P. Naik & ors.
(2022) SCC OnLine Ker 546

8. Branch Manager, Future General India Ins.
Co. Ltd. Bengaluru Vs Varsha S.L. (2019) SCC
OnLine Kar 3498
9. Shashikala & ors. Vs Ganga-lakshmamma &
anr.. (2015) 9 SCC 150
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a claimants' appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988,
seeking
enhancement
of
compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi in the
case of a fatal motor accident.

2. The claim petition, being M.A.C.P.
No.315 of 2000, was instituted by Smt.
Urmila Chaturvedi, widow of the late S.K.
Chaturvedi and Raj Kumar Chaturvedi, son
of the late S.K. Chaturvedi, seeking
compensation on account of the demise of
Sanjay Chaturvedi, who died in a road
accident
in
the
night
intervening
25/26.07.2000. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi is
the deceased's mother whereas Raj Kumar
Chaturvedi is his brother. Smt. Urmila
Chaturvedi was arrayed as claimantpetitioner No.1 before the Tribunal and is
appellant No.1 before this Court. Raj
Kumar Chaturvedi was claimant-petitioner
No.2 before the Tribunal and is appellant
No.2 before this Court. Smt. Urmila
Chaturvedi and Raj Kumar Chaturvedi
shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the
claimants', unless the context requires a
different or individual reference.

3. According to the claimants, in the
intervening night 25/26.07.2000 at about
half past one, Raj Kumar Chaturvedi was
travelling with his brother and one Ankur
Lal on board Maruti Car No. UP-93G-0711
from Kanpur to Jhansi. They were bound
homewards. The Car was driven by the late
Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi. He was moving
on his side according to the rule of the
road. As the Car reached near Village
Semari, within the local limits of Police
Station Moth, District Jhansi, a Truck,
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bearing registration No. MP-08A-6294,
approached from the Jhansi side of the
road, driven by its driver at a high speed,
negligently and wantonly. The Truck,
swerving to the wrong side of the road, hit
the Car head on, but on its right side. The
impact caused Sanjay and Raj Kumar
Chaturvedi, claimant No.2 to sustain
grievous injuries. The other passenger on
board, Ankur Lal suffered simple injuries.
Ankur Lal informed the deceased's home
on telephone about the accident. This led
members of the deceased's and the injuredclaimant's family to reach the spot and
conveyed both of them to the Medical
College at about half past six in the
morning. The two were taken to the
emergency facility, where the deceased,
who was then alive and the second
claimant, Raj Kumar Chaturvedi, were
admitted. Both were examined and were in
a
precarious
condition.
The
family
members, finding that the two injured were
not receiving suitable treatment and care,
moved them to the Sudha Nursing Home.
Sanjay was managed at the Sudha Nursing
Home until 04.08.2000, when at 7.30 in the
evening hours, he was conveyed to the
Nirmal Hospital for surgery. During the
surgical procedure to take care of certain
haemorrhagic injuries in his abdomen, he
breathed his last. The second claimant, Raj
Kumar Chaturvedi was discharged from the
Sudha Nursing Home on 10.08.2000 with
plaster cast to his injured limb. It is said
that Sanjay Chaturvedi was a healthy man
and would earn a sum of Rs.6000/- per
month, teaching at the Rajeev Coaching
Centre. He would spend the money earned
to meet the needs of his family.

4. It is the claimants' case that Smt.
Urmila Chaturvedi's husband and Raj
Kumar Chaturvedi's father had died an
untimely death on 06.04.2000. He was
employed as an Executive Engineer with
the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The
late Sanjay Chaturvedi had applied for
appointment on compassionate grounds and
his claim had been accepted. The U.P.
Power Corporation Limited had completed
the
necessary
formalities.
Sanjay
Chaturvedi was on way to be appointed as
an Assistant Engineer. He was awaiting his
letter of appointment as such with the
Parichha Thermal Power Project. Upon
appointment to the said post, he would
receive initially a salary of Rs.14,750/- per
mensem. The claimants have been deprived
of the benefits of the said appointment and
ought to be compensated on that basis. The
deceased's mother had already suffered
because of the untimely demise of her
husband and had now to face the spectre of
her son's death. She had received a severe
shock on this account and requires
treatment. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was spent
during hospitalization and treatment of the
deceased. The claimants also prayed for
compensation on account of the loss of
consortium. A total sum of Rs.21,06,000/-
was sought in compensation for Smt.
Urmila
Chaturvedi
and
a
sum
of
Rs.9,16,000/- for Raj Kumar Chaturvedi,
aggregating a sum of Rs.30,22,000/-, with
interest of 15% per annum from the date of
institution of the claim petition, until
realization.

5. Ismail Khan, opposite party No.1,
is the owner of the offending Truck
whereas Iqbal Khan is the driver. They are
arrayed as opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 to
the claim petition and respondent Nos.1
and 2 to the appeal. Ismail Khan, shall
hereinafter be referred to as 'the owner' and
Iqbal Khan, 'the driver'. The offending
Truck was insured with The New India
Assurance Company Limited through its
General Manager, Civil Lines, Jhansi. They
7 All. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Ismail Khan & Ors.
267
are the insurers of the offending Truck and
shall hereinafter be called 'the Insurers'.

6. A joint written statement was filed
on behalf of the owner and the driver,
where the case in the claim petition was
generally denied. In the additional pleas, it
was asserted that the accident did not
involve the offending Truck at all. The
claimants have falsely set up the accident,
involving the offending Truck. The ill-fated
car had collided with some other vehicle,
leading to Sanjay's death. Also, it was
pleaded that the compensation claimed is
exaggerated. The driver did not cause any
accident. On the date of the accident, the
offending Truck was insured with the
Insurers.

7. The Insurers filed their own written
statement, generally denying the claim.
They have said in the additional pleas that
it is incorrect to say that Sanjay Chaturvedi
was a healthy man prior to the accident or
that he was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per
month, working as a coaching master. The
compensation claimed is inflated. The
offending Truck was being driven by an
unauthorized man. There was contributory
negligence on the part of both the drivers.
The Maruti Car's owner and its insurers
have not been impleaded. The deceased
was not aged 31 years, nor was he gainfully
employed. He did not have an income of
Rs.6000/- per month. The Maruti Car was
driven by an unauthorized man. The claim,
according to the Insurers, deserved to be
rejected.

8. On the pleadings of parties, the
following issues were framed (translated
into English from Hindi):

"(1) Whether on 25/26.07.2000 in
the night at about 1.30, the son/ brother of
the claimants, Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi
was proceeding on his Car, bearing
registration
No.
UP-93G-0711
at
a
controlled speed and on his side, when,
near Village Semari, within the local limits
of Police Station Moth, Truck No. MP-08A6294, proceeding from the Jhansi end of
the road, driven by opposite party No.2 at a
high speed, negligently and wantonly,
moved to the wrong side of the road and hit
the Maruti Car on the right side head on,
leading the deceased, Sanjay and claimant
No.2 to sustain grievous injuries and the
other passenger, Ankur Lal simple injuries
and that during treatment, he (Sanjay)*
died?

(2) Whether on the date of the
said accident, the driver of the said Truck
had a valid driving licence? If yes, its
effect?

(3) Whether on the date of the
said accident, the said Truck was insured
with the Insurance Company/ opposite
party No.3 under a valid insurance policy?
If yes, its effect?

(4) Whether the claimants are
entitled to receive any compensation? If
yes, how much and from whom?"

[*added
by
Court
for
clarification's sake]

9. The claimants have filed through a
list of documents, bearing paper No.8C1, a
photostat copy of the FIR, medical report,
discharge ticket, High School certificate,
B.E. Degree, certificate from Rajeev
Coaching Centre, application form, and a
notarized copy of the death certificate.
Through another list of documents, paper
No.35C1, certified copies of the FIR,
charge sheet, technical report, a notarized
copy
of
the
death
certificate,
panchayatnama,
papers
summary,
investigation report, cash memos and a
notarized copy of the driving licence
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relating to the late Sanjay Chaturvedi, were
brought on record. Through a list, bearing
paper No.31C2, a photostat copy of the
injury
report,
showing
the
injuries
sustained by Sanjay was filed on record.
Still another list of documents, bearing
paper No. 44C1, carries along with it the
original certificate of pay dated 20.09.2000.
Along with a list of documents, paper No.
57C1, a certified copy of the charge-sheet
has been brought on record. Through
another list, 68C1, certified copies of the
statement of Raj Kumar has been filed,
besides policy cover note No. 60112,
bearing paper No.75-Ga and photostat copy
of the driving licence No. 1-8/99/SUP-Va1-262/96 (paper No.76-Ga).

10. The claimants examined in
support of their case, PW-1 Ankur Lal,
PW-2 Phool Chand, PW-3 Rajeev Gupta,
PW-4 Madhukar Chaturvedi and PW-5, Raj
Kumar Chaturvedi.

11. Issue No.1 was decided in favour
of the claimants, whereas Issues Nos.2 and
3 were decided in favour of the owner and
against the Insurers. In this appeal, the only
issue pressed by parties is about the
quantum of compensation, that is to say,
Issue No.4.

12. Heard Mr. Ramanuj Pandey,
Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pervez
Husain Khan, learned Counsel for the
claimants and Mr. S.D. Ojha, Advocate
appearing for the Insurers. No one has
appeared on behalf of the owner and the
driver.

13. The Tribunal has apparently
disbelieved the salary certificate issued by
the
Rajeev
Coaching
Centre
dated
20.09.2000, bearing paper No.45C2, which
shows the deceased's monthly salary as
Rs.6000/-. The said income for the
deceased has been disbelieved without any
cogent finding and merely by referring to
submissions advanced on behalf of the
Insurers. All that is said for a finding by the
Tribunal about the deceased's income is
that there is no authentic proof on record
that the deceased was about to be appointed
as an Assistant Engineer with the U.P. State
Electricity Board. It has been remarked by
the Tribunal that all that is brought on
record to prove the prospects of the
deceased's appointment is his application
made for the purpose. However, there are
no orders of the senior departmental
officers to show that the deceased was
indeed about to be appointed.

14. It has then been remarked that
according to the medical papers, the
deceased's age was about 28-30 years.
There is then a cryptic finding by the
Tribunal, based on a very illogical
assumption, that the deceased's income
would be Rs.24,000/- a year. So far as Smt.
Urmila Chaturvedi, the deceased's mother
is concerned, it has been opined that she is
aged about 50 years. Raj Kumar Chaturvedi
is the deceased's brother. There is nothing
to show, in the opinion of the Tribunal, that
Raj Kumar was dependent upon the
deceased.

15. The Tribunal has referred to a
decision of the Supreme Court in Gyan
Chand Jain and others v. Permanand
and others, 2003 (1) TAC 490, where, in
the case of death of a 26 year old unmarried
man, the mother and the father being 48
and 55 years, respectively, a multiplier of
'12' was considered to be appropriate. The
Tribunal has adopted the said multiplier.
Assuming the deceased's income to be
Rs.24,000/- per annum, one-third has been
deducted towards personal and living
7 All. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Ismail Khan & Ors.
269
expenses a and two-thirds considered the
annual
dependency
available
to
the
deceased's mother. Adopting a multiplier of
'12', dependency has been worked out at a
sum of Rs.1,92,000/-. To this has been
added a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of
estate. In this manner, the Tribunal has
arrived at the figure of Rs.1,96,500/-
payable in compensation to the deceased's
mother along with 8% interest from the
date of institution of the claim petition,
until realization. In the award made, a sum
of Rs.50,000/- has been ordered to be paid
to the claimant, Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi
through an account payee cheque, drawn on
a nationalized bank and the balance
directed to be invested in a fixed deposit
with a nationalized bank for a period of
three years, the quarterly interest whereon
would be payable to the deceased's mother.
The claim of the deceased's brother has
been rejected.

16. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the
parties,
as
already
remarked
hereinabove, this Court finds the reasons to
disbelieve the deceased's claimed income to
be hardly there and whatever reasons have
been given, they are absolutely cryptic and
laconic. The claimants have placed a
certificate from the Coaching Centre,
where the deceased taught, showing his
income to be Rs.6000/- a month. The fact
that the salary register also showed the
owner of the Coaching Centre receiving the
same salary, does not discredit the
authenticity of the payment made towards
salary to the deceased by the Coaching
Centre. In his examination-in-chief, PW-3
Rajeev Gupta has proved the salary
certificate and payment of salary in the sum
of Rs.6000/- per month to the deceased. He
has proved his signatures on the certificate
dated 20.09.2000. In his cross-examination,
no doubt, PW-3 has admitted that the
Coaching Centre is not registered and that
he has not brought the account register or
the balance sheets for the past three years.
He has, nevertheless, stated that he pays
income tax, but said that he has not brought
along the income tax assessment for the last
two years. The witness has generally
supported the fact that Sanjay Kumar
Chaturvedi taught in the named coaching
institute, and that the register and salary
certificate were genuine.

17. It is common to find in small-time
or
young
coaching
centres
irregular
maintenance of records. At the time, to
which the incident relates, non-payment of
income tax by many a small private
enterprise
was
not
an
uncommon
phenomenon. What is to be seen is that
looking to the qualifications of the
deceased, the salary claimed to have been
received by him from the Coaching Centre
is not at all an exaggerated figure. Judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that for some
decades past, there are coaching centres
galore that have almost overtaken the
formal system of education, wherein people
do not repose much trust, particularly,
when preparing to write certain competitive
admission tests, like those for admission to
engineering courses etc. For the selfemployed in the unorganized sector, some
kind of assessment about the income has to
be done, based on their education and
circumstances.

18. The deceased, as already noted,
was an engineering graduate and it is
believable that he was teaching at the
Rajeev Coaching Centre, a fact proved by
PW-3. Since there are no records, like
balance-sheets or account register for the
Coaching Centre produced, besides the
income tax returns or assessments, this
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court considers it safe to hold the
deceased's income to be a sum of Rs.5000/-
per month. It is, accordingly, held. Given
the monthly income of the deceased, the
annual income would be Rs.60,000/-.

19. The Tribunal has erred in
deducting a one-third towards and personal
and living expenses of the deceased. The
deceased was a bachelor, and going by the
principles with regard to deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the
bachelors, as laid down by the Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, 50% of the income has
to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses; not 'one-third'. This Court must
say here that the deceased's brother, who is
a matured and independent man, is in no
manner one of his dependents. The finding
of the Tribunal on this score is affirmed.

20. The Tribunal has applied a
multiplier of '12' going by the claimant's
age, who is the deceased's mother. The
deceased was clearly aged, according to his
High School Certificate, 30 years, 9 months
25 days, as on the date of his demise. The
principle governing the reckoning of age
beyond completed years, with added
months, has received the attention of the
Supreme Court in Shashikala and others
v. Ganga-lakshmamma and another,
(2015) 9 SCC 150. In Shashikala (supra),
it has been observed:

"16.
Insofar
as
appropriate
multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased
as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On
the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the
deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and
28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age
as 46 years. Since the deceased has
completed only 45 years, the High Court
has rightly taken the age of the deceased as
45 years and adopted multiplier of 14
which is the appropriate multiplier and the
same
is
maintained.
Total
loss
of
dependency is calculated at Rs 16,82,310
(Rs 1,20,165 × 14)."

21. A Division Bench of the
Karnataka
High
Court
in
Branch
Manager,
Future
General
India
Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru
v. Varsha S.L., 2019 SCC OnLine Kar
3498, has held:

"44. The next controversy is with
regard to the appropriate multiplier to be
applied in the instant case. As noted above,
the contention of Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy,
Learned
Counsel
for
the
Insurance
Company is that the deceased was 40 years
7 months 5 days and therefore, he was 41
years and not 40 years and hence, the
multiplier which is applicable for the age
group 41 to 45 years being '14' had to be
applied in the instant case, but the Tribunal
has applied the multiplier of '15', which is
for the age group of 35-40 years.

45. The contra submission of
Learned Counsel for the claimants is that
the completed age has to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of applying
the multiplier and not the running age. In
the
instant
case,
the
deceased
Ethendranath had completed 40 years and
not 41 years. That he maybe 40 years and
few months thereafter, but that does not
mean that he had completed 41 years.
Hence, the contention of Learned Counsel
for the claimants is that multiplier '15' has
been rightly applied by the Tribunal."

(emphasis by Court)

22. More recently, a learned Single
Judge of the Kerala High Court in P.O.
Meera and another v. Ananda P. Naik
7 All. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Ismail Khan & Ors.
271
and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 546
had occasion to consider the issue, where it
has been held:

"33. Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath
argued that since Madhavan had completed
the age of 50 years and was running 51, the
multiplier of '11' adopted by the Tribunal
is correct. He also contended that, if the
above interpretation is not followed, there
would be a vacuum in the age group
between 50 - 51 years. The argument may
sound attractive at the first blush, but is
hard to be accepted for the following
reasons.

37. A reading of the table in Sarla
Verma leaves no room for any speculation
that it is only when the deceased/injured
completes the age of 51 years, the
multiplier would shift from '13' to '11' and
not when the deceased/injured attains the
age of 50 years and runs the said age till
the previous night of his 51st birthday.
(Read the interpretation given by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Prabhu
Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan [(1986)
4 SCC 59 on the Indian Majority Act, 1875
and this Court in Jaison V. George v. State
of Kerala [2019 (5) KHC 115] on the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2005, while computing the
age of a person). In other words, the sine
qua non to select the multiplier is the
attainment of the specified age mentioned
in the table and not the running of the age
into the next group. It is also apposite to
note, in Pranay Sethi, the age for awarding
future prospects is segregated into three
groups i.e., 16 - 39, 40 - 49 and 50 - 59.
Therefore, if the argument of the learned
Counsel for the Insurer is to be accepted,
the same vacuum would also arise at the
ages of 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 55, 60 and 65 in
selecting the multiplier and the ages of 39,
49 and 59 for awarding future prospects.
This Court is bound to follow the law
declared by the Honourable Supreme Court
as enshrined under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India and not to give a
different interpretation or tinker with the
well settled enunciation."

23. It would, thus, be evident that the
deceased, who had, going by his High
School Certificate, not completed the age
of 31 years and was about two months shy
of that age, cannot be regarded as 31 years.
He has to be accepted as 30 years old.

24. The applicable multiplier for the
age bracket of 26-30 years, as laid down in
the table in Paragraph No.40 of the report
in Sarla Verma (supra) is '17'. There is, of
course, no basis in law to apply a multiplier
based on the parents' age. That principle
has been given up long ago and Sarla
Verma is an authority on the point, which
has universally been followed for the
choice
of
multiplier.
The
Tribunal,
therefore, clearly erred in adopting a
multiplier of '12', which ought to be '17'.

25. The next question to be
considered is about the future prospects of
the deceased, which has been urged by the
claimants. According to the decision of the
Supreme
Court
in National
Insurance
Company v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017)
16 SCC 680, future prospects are admissible in
cases of persons, who are self-employed or
those working on fixed salary. It is no longer
the law that future prospects are reserved for the
salaried class in government services alone or
those employed in the lucrative private sector.
In this connection, reference may be made to
the holding in Pranay Sethi (supra), where it
has been observed:

"56. The seminal issue is the
fixation of future prospects in cases of
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased who are self-employed or on a
fixed salary. Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v.
DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] 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 selfemployed 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. In case of a deceased who
had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant
of annual increment, there is an acceptable
certainty. But to state that the legal
representatives of a deceased who was on a
fixed salary would not be entitled to the
benefit of future prospects for the purpose
of computation of compensation would be
inapposite. It is because the criterion of
distinction between the two in that event
would be certainty on the one hand and
staticness on the other. One may perceive
that the comparative measure is certainty
on the one hand and uncertainty on the
other but such a perception is fallacious. It
is because the price rise does affect a selfemployed person; and that apart there is
always an incessant effort to enhance one's
income for sustenance. The purchasing
capacity of a salaried person on permanent
job when increases because of grant of
increments and pay revision or for some
other change in service conditions, there is
always a competing attitude in the private
sector to enhance the salary to get better
efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a
person who is self-employed is bound to
garner his resources and raise his
charges/fees so that he can live with same
facilities. To have the perception that he is
likely to remain static and his income to
remain
stagnant
is
contrary
to
the
fundamental concept of human attitude
which always intends to live with dynamism
and move and change with the time.
Though it may seem appropriate that there
cannot be certainty in addition of future
prospects to the existing income unlike in
the case of a person having a permanent
job, yet the said perception does not really
deserve acceptance. 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 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
7 All. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Ismail Khan & Ors.
273
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.

58. The controversy does not end
here. The question still remains whether
there should be no addition where the age
of the deceased is more than 50 years.
Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)
6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] thinks it
appropriate not to add any amount and the
same has been approved in Reshma
Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan,
(2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191
: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] . Judicial notice
can be taken of the fact that salary does not
remain the same. When a person is in a
permanent
job,
there
is
always
an
enhancement due to one reason or the
other. To lay down as a thumb rule that
there will be no addition after 50 years will
be an unacceptable concept. We are
disposed to think, there should be an
addition of 15% if the deceased is between
the age of 50 to 60 years and there should
be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case
of self-employed or person on fixed salary,
the addition should be 10% between the
age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can
be consistency in the approach by the
tribunals and the courts."

26. In the State of Uttar Pradesh,
future prospects are governed by Rule 220A (3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 (for short, the Rules of 1998) as held
by the Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd v. Urmila Shukla and
others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822.
Therefore, the computation has to be made
in accordance with the Rules of 1998, and
not the principles in Pranay Sethi.

27. After the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar and
others v. M/s. Sampark Lojastic Private
Limited and others, 2017 (35) LCD 1311,
Rule 220-A (3) of the Rules of 1998, that
was
introduced
by
Notification
No.
777/XXX-4- 2011-4(3)-2010 dated 26
September, 2011 i.e. The Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment)
Rules, 2011, is applicable retrospectively to
an accident that happened much before the
amendment. Rule 220-A (3) provides for
addition of 50% of the deceased's income
towards
future
prospects,
where
the
deceased was aged less than 40 years. In
the present case, the claimant, Smt. Urmila
Chaturvedi is, therefore, held entitled to
add 50% to the deceased's income.

28.

The
issue
of
award
of
compensation under the conventional heads
was
again
the
subject
matter
of
consideration in Pranay Sethi, where it has
been held:

"48. This aspect needs to be
clarified
and
appositely
stated.
The
conventional sum has been provided in the
Second Schedule to the Act. The said
Schedule has been found to be defective as
stated by the Court in Trilok Chandra [UP
SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362]
. Recently, in Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana
Reddy [Puttamma v.K.L. Narayana Reddy,
(2013) 15 SCC 45 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 384 :
(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 574] it has been
reiterated by stating : (SCC p. 80, para 54)

"54. ... we hold that the Second
Schedule as was enacted in 1994 has now
become
redundant,
irrational
and
unworkable
due
to
changed
scenario
including the present cost of living and
current rate of inflation and increased life
expectancy."
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

49. As far as multiplier or
multiplicand is concerned, the same has
been put to rest by the judgments of this
Court. Para 3 of the Second Schedule also
provides for general damages in case of
death. It is as follows:

"3. General damages (in case of
death):

The following general damages
shall
be
payable
in
addition
to
compensation outlined above:

(i)
Funeral expenses
Rs 2000
(ii)
Loss of consortium, if
beneficiary
is
the
spouse
Rs 5000
(iii)
Loss of estate
Rs 2500
(iv)
Medical expenses -
actual
expenses
incurred
before
death supported by
bills/vouchers but not
exceeding
Rs
15,000"

50. On a perusal of various
decisions of this Court, it is manifest that
the Second Schedule has not been followed
starting from the decision in Trilok
Chandra [UP SRTC v.Trilok Chandra,
(1996) 4 SCC 362] and there has been no
amendment to the same. The conventional
damage amount needs to be appositely
determined. As we notice, in different cases
different amounts have been granted. A
sum of Rs 1,00,000 was granted towards
consortium inRajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :
(2014)
1
SCC
(L&S)
149]
.
The
justification for grant of consortium, as we
find fromRajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179
: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149] , is founded on the observation
as we have reproduced hereinbefore.

51. On the aforesaid basis, the
Court has revisited the practice of
awarding
compensation
under
conventional heads.

52. As far as the conventional
heads are concerned, we find it difficult to
agree
with
the
view
expressed
in
Rajesh[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9
SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013)
3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S)
149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards
funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss
of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss
of care and guidance for minor children.
The head relating to loss of care and minor
children does not exist. ThoughRajesh
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers
to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it
does not seem to follow the same. 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
7 All. Smt. Urmila Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Ismail Khan & Ors.
275
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 factcentric 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 by Court)

29. There is then the question of
compensation to be awarded on account of
loss of consortium. Here, the deceased was
claimant No.1's son and, therefore, she
would be entitled to the award of filial
consortium in accordance with the holding
of the Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18
SCC 130.

30. In view of the aforesaid
conclusion, the compensation payable to
the claimant-mother in this appeal is
revised and shall be determined in the
following manner:

(i)
Monthly Income
(of the deceased)
=
5000
(ii)
Annual
Income
(of the deceased)
= 5000x12
=
60000
(iii) Annual
Income+Future
Prospects (annual
income x 50%)
= 60000+30000
=
90000
(iv)
Annual
Dependency
=
=
45000
Annual Income -
50%
deduction
towards personal
expenses of the
deceased
=
90000-45000
(v)
Total Dependency
=
Annual
Dependency
x
Applied
Multiplier
= 45000 x 17
=
765000
(vi)
Claimant's
entitlement
towards
conventional
heads = Loss of
Estate + Funeral
Expenses
+
dependents'
Consortium
=15000+15000+4
0000
=
70000
The total
compensation would
therefore, work out to
a figure of Rs.765000+
Rs.70000
=
835000

31. In the result, this appeal is
allowed in part. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation
awarded
enhanced
to
Rs.8,35,000/-. The aforesaid sum of money
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of institution of
the claim petition, until realization. Any
sum of money already deposited with the
Tribunal by the Insurers, pursuant to the
impugned award or the interim orders
passed by this Court, shall be adjusted
against it. The direction of the Tribunal for
investment of the awarded compensation in
fixed deposit shall stand set aside and the
entire compensation, as enhanced by this
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award, shall be paid in account through a
bank instrument or electronic transfer, as
permissible under the rules or as per
directions of the Tribunal on the execution
side.

32. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 2874 of 2010

Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.P. Singh, Amarendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A.