# Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors v. Nathuni Ray & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-20
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2200 of 2014
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-urmila-devi-ors-v-nathuni-ray-ors-45173
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss 166, 168 -
Compensation - Income - net monthly
income Vis-a-vis gross income

Tribunal for the purpose of computation of
deceased's monthly income, had taken into
account the net monthly income of the
deceased - Held - Tribunal ought to have
awarded compensation on the basis of gross
salary of the deceased which is Rs. 8,500/- as
the income of the deceased was not within
taxable range limits (Para 14, 16)

B. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Future Prospects - Deceased
was 40 yrs & held permanent job - Held -
addition of 30% if the age of the
deceased was 40 to 50 years & had a
permanent job - Tribunal ought to have
added 30% of actual salary to the income
of
the
deceased
towards
future
prospects. (Para 19)

C. Civil Law-U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rule 220-A - Compensation -
Deduction towards personal & living
expenses - deceased left behind his
parents, his wife, four minor children -
minor children as per Rule 220-A of the
U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, shall
be treated as two units - total five
dependants - Held - keeping in view the
dictum laid down in paragraph 14 of
Sarla Verma, the deduction should have
been one-fifth. (Para 24)

D. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Ss 166, 168 - Compensation - Selection
of Multiplier - deceased aged about 42
years - Held - as per the table provided
in judgement of Sarla Verma , the
Tribunal ought to have adopted the
multiplier 14 (Para 26)
E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss 166, 168
- Compensation - Reasonable figures
on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium
&
funeral
expenses is Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/-
 and Rs. 15,000/ respectively (Para 9)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss 166, 168
- Compensation - Interest - Tribunal not
justified in awarding interest on the
amount of compensation conditionally.

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,89,000/-
together with interest @ 8% p.a. in case the
opposite parties/respondents failed to deposit
the entire amount of awarded compensation
within 30 days of the award - Held - Tribunal
was not justified in awarding interest on the
amount
of
compensation
conditionally
-
claimants/appellants entitled to interest @ 8%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual payment is made. (Para 25, 28)\

G. Civil Law-Civil Procedure Code (5
of 1908) - O.41 R.33 - Power

## Text

2 All. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Nathuni Ray & Ors.
1321
compensation but the insured would have
to repay to the company all the sums paid
by the company which is in excess of its
liability under the policy of insurance.

34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of New India Assurance Company Limited
Vs. Vimla Devi & Others; 2011 (3) TAC 70
(SC) after considering the aforesaid avoidance
clause, and referring to the decision in the case
of Amrit Lal Sood & Another Vs. Kaushalya
Devi Thaper & Orthers;1998 (2) TAC 97
(SC) held that the insurance company was
rightly directed by the High Court to make
payment of the full amount of compensation
and to recover the excess amount from the
owner of the motor vehicle. A full Bench of
Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantaben
& Others Vs. Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel
& Others; 2013 (2) TAC 791 (Gaj.) and
framed the question for consideration in
paragraph-25 and answered the same in
paragraph-41, which are extracted below:-

"25. Having thus heard the learned
counsel for the parties, short question that
calls for consideration is whether the
Insurance Company can be directed to
discharge the entire liability of compensation
fixed by the claims tribunal or whether the
liability of the Insurance Company would be
restricted too the statutory liability of
Rs.50,000/- prevailing at the relevant time."

"41. Our answer to the question
farmed is that wherever the insurance policy
contains an avoidance clause providing that
nothing in the policy shall affect the right of
any person indemnified by the policy or any
other person by recovering amount under or
by virtue of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,
but further requires insured to repay to the
Insurance Company all such sums paid by the
company which the company would not have
been liable to pay, but for this provision, the
Insurance Company cannot press in service
the statutory limit of liability under the Motor
Vehicles Act insofar as the claimants are
concerned. But the insured would have to
repay to the company all the sums paid by the
company which is in excess of its liability
under the policy of insurance."

35. In view of above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appeal is liable to
be allowed and the impugned judgment and
award modified and the respondent insurance
company is liable to pay the entire amount of
compensation. Accordingly, the judgment and
award dated 17.02.2005 passed in claim
petition no. 35 of 1988; Smt. Pramila Chopra
and others versus New India Assurance
Company Ltd. and others by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, /Additional District Judge,
Court no. 1, Lucknow is modified. The
respondent no.1 / New India Assurance
Company
Ltd.
shall
pay
amount
of
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,12,851.20
alongwith interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. the
date of filing of petition till the date of
realization, after adjusting the amount already
paid within a period of six weeks from today.

36. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1321

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2200 of 2014

Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Nathuni Ray & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
1322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Ankit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava
Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Saurabh Srivastava

A. Civil Law-Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss 166, 168 -
Compensation - Income - net monthly
income Vis-a-vis gross income

Tribunal for the purpose of computation of
deceased's monthly income, had taken into
account the net monthly income of the
deceased - Held - Tribunal ought to have
awarded compensation on the basis of gross
salary of the deceased which is Rs. 8,500/- as
the income of the deceased was not within
taxable range limits (Para 14, 16)

B. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Future Prospects - Deceased
was 40 yrs & held permanent job - Held -
addition of 30% if the age of the
deceased was 40 to 50 years & had a
permanent job - Tribunal ought to have
added 30% of actual salary to the income
of
the
deceased
towards
future
prospects. (Para 19)

C. Civil Law-U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - Rule 220-A - Compensation -
Deduction towards personal & living
expenses - deceased left behind his
parents, his wife, four minor children -
minor children as per Rule 220-A of the
U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, shall
be treated as two units - total five
dependants - Held - keeping in view the
dictum laid down in paragraph 14 of
Sarla Verma, the deduction should have
been one-fifth. (Para 24)

D. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Ss 166, 168 - Compensation - Selection
of Multiplier - deceased aged about 42
years - Held - as per the table provided
in judgement of Sarla Verma , the
Tribunal ought to have adopted the
multiplier 14 (Para 26)
E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss 166, 168
- Compensation - Reasonable figures
on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium
&
funeral
expenses is Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/-
 and Rs. 15,000/ respectively (Para 9)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss 166, 168
- Compensation - Interest - Tribunal not
justified in awarding interest on the
amount of compensation conditionally.

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,89,000/-
together with interest @ 8% p.a. in case the
opposite parties/respondents failed to deposit
the entire amount of awarded compensation
within 30 days of the award - Held - Tribunal
was not justified in awarding interest on the
amount
of
compensation
conditionally
-
claimants/appellants entitled to interest @ 8%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual payment is made. (Para 25, 28)\

G. Civil Law-Civil Procedure Code (5
of 1908) - O.41 R.33 - Power of Court
of Appeal- appellate court have
power to pass any decree which ought
to have been passed or made - this
power may be exercised in favour of
all or any of the respondents or
parties, although they may not have
filed any cross appeal or objection
(Para 26)

Appeal Partly allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr 2009 (2)
T.A.C. 677 (SC)

2. National Insurance Company Ltd Vs
Pranay Sethi & ors 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J.)

1. Seen the office report dated
18.3.2017. Service on respondent no. 1
is deemed to be sufficient in view of the
provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 12,
Explanation (II) of the High Court Rules.
2 All. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Nathuni Ray & Ors.
1323

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Sinha,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3.

3. This appeal has been preferred by
the claimants/appellants for enhancement
of compensation awarded to them by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.3, Allahabad by judgement and award
dated 27.2.2014 passed in M.A.C.P No. 01
of 1998 by which a sum of Rs. 7,89,000/-
together with interest @ 8% p.a. in case
the opposite parties/respondents failed to
deposit the entire amount of awarded
compensation within 30 days of the award,
was awarded as compensation.

4. It appears from the perusal of the
record that one Ravi Shankar Pandey
(deceased) aged about 42 years on the
relevant date, was posted as Assistant
Auditing Officer and was earning a sum of
Rs. 8,700/- per month. On 31.8.1997,
while the deceased was going from
Kalipara to Navpara at Bahraich, by a jeep
bearing registration no. U.P. 40/A 2423, it
collided with truck bearing registration no.
W.B. 03/A 4458 due to rash and negligent
driving of the drivers of both the vehicles.
In the accident so caused, the deceased
received severe head injuries and he was
admitted to Krishna Medical Centre,
Lucknow, and had remained there under
the treatment of Dr. Piyush Mittal from
31.8.1997 to 13.9.1997 incurring expenses
of Rs. 50,000/- towards treatment. At the
time of his death, his wife Smt. Urmila,
sons-Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jitendra Kumar
Pandey
and
Vinay
Kumar
Pandey,
daughter Km. Pratibha Pandey, father Hari
Lal Pandey and mother Devkanya Devi
were dependent on him. The claim petition
was filed by the claimants/appellants for
an
award
of
Rs.
70,00,000/-
as
compensation for the death of Ravi
Shankar Pandey as a result of the injuries
sustained by him in an accident which was
caused due to rash and negligent driving of
drivers of the two vehicles.

5. The claim petition was contested
by
opposite
party/respondent no.
2,
Irrigation Department Khand Irrigation
and opposite party/respondent no. 3,
United India Insurance Company Ltd. The
owner
of
the
tanker,
opposite
party/respondent no. 1, Nathuni Ray in this
appeal did not contest the claim petition.

6. The Insurance Company in its
written statement though broadly admitted
the allegations made in the claim petition,
but pleaded that the owner of the tanker
alone could not be saddled with the
liability
of
payment
of
entire
compensation as it is the case of a
contributory negligence and the liability
should be apportioned between owners of
both the vehicles. The Insurance Company
further sought time for verification of the
driving license of the driver of truck
bearing registration no. W.B. 03/A 4458.
The Irrigation Department in its written
statement neither admitted nor considered
it necessary to reply to the averments
made in the claim petition. It further
pleaded that the driver of the jeep in which
the deceased was travelling, possessed a
valid driving license and was driving the
jeep at the time of the accident as per the
traffic rules i.e. at the speed of 20-25
km/hour and the accident had been caused
due to rash and negligent driving of the
tanker by its driver.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of
the parties, the Tribunal framed following
issues :-
1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1)
Whether
Ravi
Shankar
Pandey died in the accident caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the truck bearing registration no. W.B.
03/A 4458 on 31.08.1997 at 11.45 am?

2) What compensation are the
claimants entitled to ?

3) Is the truck in question fully
insured?

4) Is the Insurance Company not
liable to pay the compensation?

5) Relief.

8. The claimant/appellants in support
of their claim, lead oral as well as
documentary evidence. The oral evidence
comprised of the statements of P.W.1 Smt.
Urmila Devi, P.W.2 Kamla Prasad Mishra
and P.W.3 Satish Chandra whereas the
documentary evidence adduced comprised
of copy of First Information Report of the
accident registered as Case Crime No. 121
of 1997, registration certificate of vehicle
no. W.B. 03/A 4458, permit, copy of
insurance policy, death certificate of the
deceased issued by Krishna Medical
Centre, extract of family of Ravi Shankar
Pandey, High School mark sheet of the
deceased, charge-sheet filed in Case Crime
No. 121 of 1997, site plan of the place of
accident, Technical Examination Report of
the two vehicles bearing registration nos.
U.P. 40/A 2423 and W.B. 03/A 4458 on
behalf of the opposite party/respondent no.
2, Irrigation Department Khand Irrigation
and the copy of driving license of Prabhu
Dayal,
driver
of
vehicle
no.
U.P.
40A/2423.

9. Notice may be taken of the fact
that initially the M.A.C.P. No. 01 of 1998
was decreed ex-parte qua the opposite
party/respondent
no.
2,
Irrigation
Department by judgement and award dated
16.7.2004. However, the application filed
by the Irrigation Department under IX
Rule 13 was allowed by the M.A.C.T. and
the ex-parte judgement and award dated
16.7.2004 was set aside and thereafter the
impugned judgement and award has been
passed.

10. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.3, Allahabad after considering the
submissions advanced before him by the
learned counsel for the parties and
scrutinizing the evidence on record,
awarded the sum of Rs. 7,89,000/- as
compensation inter alia holding that the
deceased at the time of his death was aged
about 42 years and earning Rs. 6,500/- and
had
left
behind
seven
dependents
including four minor children treated as
two units as per Rule 220-A of the U.P.
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and after
deducting (1/3 of 6,500) amount towards
personal and living expenses of the
deceased, he would have contributed a
sum of Rs. 4333/- per month or Rs.
51996/- per annum towards his family and
applied the multiplier of 15 and since it
was a case of contributory negligence,
accordingly, Tribunal fixed the liability of
50-50.

11. The impugned judgement and
award has been assailed by learned
counsel for the appellant on the
following grounds :-

1) The M.A.C.T. erred in law
in holding the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs. 6,500/- whereas the
gross salary of the deceased was Rs.
8,500/- at the time of his death, for the
purpose
of
computing
the
compensation.

2) The M.A.C.T. did not award
any amount towards future prospects.
2 All. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Nathuni Ray & Ors.
1325

3) The amount awarded under the
conventional heads is too meagre and not in
consonance with the principles laid down by
the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) .

4) The M.A.C.T. erred in deducting
one-third amount towards living and personal
expenses of the deceased, whereas considering
the
number
of
his
heirs
and
legal
representatives, the deduction made should
have been one-fifth.

5) The M.A.C.T. erred in awarding
the interest on the amount of awarded
compensation
conditionally
by
illegally
providing that the interest on the awarded
amount will be payable only if the Insurance
Company fails to deposit the entire awarded
compensation within 30 days of the award.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 made their
submissions in support of the impugned
judgement and award.

13. After having heard learned counsel
for the parties, we find that there is force in the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants.

14. Coming to the first ground of
challenge to the impugned judgement and
award, we find that the Tribunal for the
purpose of computation of deceased's monthly
income, had taken into account the net
monthly income of the deceased whereas the
gross income of the deceased ought to have
been made the basis for calculating the
compensation.

15. Our attention has been invited by
learned counsel for the appellant to paragraph
10 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & another reported in
2009 (2) T.A.C. SC 677, wherein the Apex
Court has held hereinunder :-

"10. Generally the actual income
of the deceased less income tax should be
the starting point for calculating the
compensation. The question is whether
actual income at the time of death should
be taken as the income or whether any
addition should be made by taking note of
future prospects. In Susamma Thomas, this
Court held that the future prospects of
advancement in life and career should also
be sounded in terms of money to augment
the multiplicand (annual contribution to
the dependants); and that where the
deceased had a stable job, the court can
take note of the prospects of the future and
it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss
of dependency on the actual income of the
deceased at the time of death. In that case,
the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years
at the time of death, was Rs.1032/- per
month. Having regard to the evidence in
regard to future prospects, this Court was
of the view that the higher estimate of
monthly income could be made at
Rs.2000/-
as
gross
income
before
deducting the personal living expenses.
The decision in Susamma Thomas was
followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav
[1996 (3) SCC 179], where the deceased
was getting a gross salary of Rs.1543/- per
month. Having regard to the future
prospects of promotions and increases,
this Court assumed that by the time he
retired, his earning would have nearly
doubled, say Rs.3000/-. This court took the
average of the actual income at the time of
death and the projected income if he had
lived a normal life period, and determined
the monthly income as Rs.2200/- per
month. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director
General, Geological Survey of India [2003
1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(3) SCC 148], as against the actual salary
income
of
Rs.42,000/-
per
annum,
(Rs.3500/- per month) at the time of
accident, this court assumed the income as
Rs.45,000/- per annum, having regard to
the
future
prospects
and
career
advancement of the deceased who was 40
years of age."

16. Thus in view of the principles culled
out in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), we
find that the Tribunal erred in taking into
account the net salary of the deceased as the
basis for awarding compensation wherein it
ought to have awarded compensation on the
basis of gross salary of the deceased which is
Rs. 8,500/- as the income of the deceased was
not within taxable range limits.

17. As regards the second ground of
challenge canvassed by the appellants that the
Tribunal acted illegally in not awarding any
amount towards future prospects, we find force
in the same.

18. The Constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court in paragraph 61-iii of Pranay
Sethi (supra) has observed as hereinunder :-

"(iii) While determining the income,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40
years, should be made. The addition should be
30%, if the age of the deceased was between
40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition
should be 15%. Actual salary should be read
as actual salary less tax."

19. In the present case, there is no
dispute about the fact that the deceased at the
time of attaining the age of 40 years and was
holding permanent job and hence the Tribunal
ought to have added 30% of actual salary to
the income of the deceased towards future
prospects. We thus add 30% of the actual
salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, while computing his income.

20. Coming to the third ground of
challenge that the amount awarded under
conventional heads was too meagre and
not in consonance with the principles laid
down in paragraph 61 (viii) of Pranay
Sethi (supra), the same also has force. The
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) in paragraph 61 (viii) has observed
as hereinunder :-

"(viii) 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 aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of
10% in every three years."

21. In the instant case, we find that
the Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.
5,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-
towards loss of consortium, funeral
expenses and loss of estate respectively
under the conventional heads, which is
neither reasonable nor justifiable.

22. We, accordingly, hold that the
claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively for loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.

23. Considering the fourth ground of
challenge that at the time of death of the
deceased, he had left behind seven family
members who were dependent upon him,
we find that the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the
deceased should have been one-fifth as
2 All. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Nathuni Ray & Ors.
1327
made by the Tribunal in view of the
principle laid down in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra) by the Apex Court.
Paragraph 14 of the judgement of Sarla
Verma (supra) which is relevant for our
purpose is being reproduced hereinbelow
:-

"14. Though in some cases the
deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardized deductions.
Having
considered
several
subsequent
decisions of this court, we are of the view that
where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third
(1/3rd) where the number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependant family members is 4 to 6,
and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependent family members exceed six."

24. In the present case, the deceased had
left behind his wife Urmilla, four minor
children which as per Rule 220-A of the U.P.
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, shall be treated as
two units and his parents, total five dependants,
hence, keeping in view the dictum laid down
in paragraph 14 of Sarla Verma (supra), the
deduction should have been one-fifth.

25. Coming to the last ground upon
which the impugned judgement and award has
been challenged, in our opinion, the Tribunal
was not at all justified in awarding interest on
the amount of compensation conditionally.

26. Although there is no appeal of the
Insurance
Company
challenging
the
correctness of the multiplier adopted by the
Tribunal in considering the fact that at the time
of his death the deceased was aged about 42
years, then as per the table provided in
paragraph 21 of the judgement of Sarla Verma
(supra), the Tribunal ought to have adopted the
multiplier 14 (M-14) but nevertheless in order
to do complete justice between the parties, we
can exercise the power conferred under Order
41 Rule 33 of the C.P.C. which provides that
the appellate court shall have power to pass
any decree which ought to have been passed or
made and this power may be exercised by the
Court in favour of all or any of the respondents
or parties, although they may not have filed
any cross appeal or objection. Order 41 Rule
33 C.P.C. is being reproduced hereinbelow :-

"33 . Power of Court of Appeal--
The Appellate Court shall have power to
pass any decree and make any order which
ought to have been passed or made and to
pass or make such further or other decree
or order as the case may require, and this
power may be exercised by the Court
notwithstandng that the appeal is as to
part only of the decree and may be
exercised in favour of all or any of the
respondents or parties, although such
respondents or parties may not have filed
any appeal or objection and may, where
there have been decrees in cross-suits or
where two or more decrees are passed in
one suit, be exercised in respect of all or
any of the decrees, although an appeal
may not have been filed against such
decrees."

27. Thus, in view of above, keeping
in view the legal principles followed by
the Apex Court in paragraph 21 of Sarla
Verma (supra), we hold that the multiplier
which should have been adopted in the
instant case should be 14 and not 15.

28. We accordingly proceed to
recalculate the compensation in the light of
the aforesaid principles. As noted above,
the actual salary of the deceased was Rs.
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8,500/- per month or Rs. 1,02,000/- p.a.
By adding 30% towards future prospects
as the deceased was between the age of 40
to 50 years, the deemed gross income of
the deceased would be Rs. 8,500/- + 30%
of Rs. 8,500/- = Rs. 11,050/- per month or
Rs. 1,32,600/- p.a. After deducting 1/5th
amount (i.e. 11,050-2,210) towards the
living and personal expenses of the
deceased, his contribution to the family is
determined as Rs. 8,840/- per month or Rs.
1,06,080/- p.a. By applying the multiplier
of 14, the total loss of dependency is
assessed at Rs. 14,85,120/-. We further
award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- under the
head of loss of consortium and Rs.
15,000/- towards loss of estate. We
accordingly increase the compensation
awarded to the claimants/appellants by the
Tribunal from Rs. 7,89,000/- to Rs.
15,55,120/-. The claimants/appellants shall
further be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. on
the increased amount of compensation
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual payment is made.

29. The appeal is allowed in part.

30. The impugned judgement and
award stand modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove.

31. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1328

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3373 of 2014

Smt. Mamta @ Savita & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Chaman Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Dahma, Sri Navneet Chandra
Tripathi, Sri Ramji Yadav

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Compensation - Deduction
towards personal & living expenses -
one-fourth (1/4 th) where the number of
dependant family members is 4 to 6 -
Held - Deceased left behind his wife, his
three minor children and his parents -
Total number of dependants comes to 3.5
unit excluding the father - Tribunal
committed error by deducting 1/3rd
amount towards personal expenses - as it
should have deducted 1/4th amount from
income of the deceased (Para 8)

B. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Future Prospects - Deceased
below 40 yrs - Held - Tribunal failed to
award any compensation towards future
prospects
by
adding
40%
of
the
established income (Para 9)

C. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss
166, 168 - Compensation - Reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium &
funeral
expenses
is
Rs.
15,000/,
Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively
(Para 9)

First Appeal From Order Partly allowed
(E-5)
List of cases cited :

1. Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC)

2. National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors 2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC)