# Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors v. Sri Bachchu Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2047 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-urmila-devi-ors-v-sri-bachchu-singh-ors-48478
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166, - U.P. Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rules 220 - Appeal -
Quantum of compensation - Accident as well
as issue of negligence is not disputed -
enhancement of Compensation - deceased
was 40 years old and was doing business of
Milk & Agriculture - Multiplier of 18 should
be applied instead of 17 & deduction of 1/4th
towards personal expense instead of 1/3rd as
per law lay down in Sarla Verma's & Pranay
Sethi' Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court -
40% of income ought to be added towards
future loss of income - including Rs. 50,000/-
towards
non-pecuniary
damages
-
Compensation
computed
and
awarded
accordingly.(Para - 5, 8, 9, 12)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that claimant's injury could be cured by
physiotherapy and frozen knee could be the
result of his own negligence.

10. Keeping in view above facts and
circumstances of the case, the disabilty
certificate, itself, becomes doubtful and is
not in confirmity with the X-ray report, on
which basis, it is prepared. Hence, this
certificate cannot be relied on. As far as,
the expenses regarding attendants are
concerned, there is no such evidence on
record that he had paid any money to any
attendant.

11. In view of the discussion made
above, we are in full agreement with the
findings given by learned Tribunal and
claimant was rightly awarded Rs.10,000/-
with 7% per annum rate of interest for pain
and sufferings, way back in the year 2005
for the accident occured in the year 2001.

12. Hence the appeal sans merit and is
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1268
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2047 of 2021

Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Bachchu Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Madhav Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166, - U.P. Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rules 220 - Appeal -
Quantum of compensation - Accident as well
as issue of negligence is not disputed -
enhancement of Compensation - deceased
was 40 years old and was doing business of
Milk & Agriculture - Multiplier of 18 should
be applied instead of 17 & deduction of 1/4th
towards personal expense instead of 1/3rd as
per law lay down in Sarla Verma's & Pranay
Sethi' Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court -
40% of income ought to be added towards
future loss of income - including Rs. 50,000/-
towards
non-pecuniary
damages
-
Compensation
computed
and
awarded
accordingly.(Para - 5, 8, 9, 12)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 Law Suit (SC)

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 vol. 0 Supreme (SC) 105

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. (Decided by Hon'ble Apex Court
on 27.01.2022)

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

1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the
judgment and order impugned. None has
appeared for the respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimant, challenges the judgment and
award dated 2.8.2001 passed by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to
as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.552 of 1999
awarding a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as
compensation with conditional interest at
the rate of 9%.
5 All. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Sri Bachchu Singh & Ors.
1269

3. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal
is also not in dispute. The only issue to be
decided is the quantum of compensation
awarded.

4. The accident took place on
20.4.1999. The deceased was 25 years of
age and was in the profession of selling
milk
and
agriculture.
The
Tribunal
considered his income to be Rs.15000/- per
annum, deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses
of
the
deceased,
granted
multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.7,000/-
towards non pecuniary damages and that is
how the Tribunal has calculated the total
compensation to be Rs.1,77,000/-

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the income of the deceased
should be considered to be at least
Rs.5,000/-
per
month.
It
is
further
submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that the Tribunal has not added
any amount under the head of future loss of
income which should be granted in view of
decision in of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It is also
submitted that the Tribunal has applied the
multiplier of 17, which would be 18 in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another,
2009 LawSuit (SC)

6. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that the amount
awarded under non pecuniary damages is
on the lower side and is required to be
enhanced in view of the decision in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC)
1093.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
has lastly submitted that the interest
awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side
and it should be as per the repo rate
prevailing in those days.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the appellant, in the instant case, the
income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as
considered by the Tribunal is just and
proper. To which as the deceased was
below 40 years and was having his own
business, 40% will have to be added
towards future loss of income of the
deceased in view of the decision in Pranay
Sethi (Supra). This Court is in agreement
with learned counsel for the appellant that
the multiplier of 18 should be granted in
view of the decision in Sarla Verma
(Supra). As far as deduction towards
personal
expenses
of
deceased
is
concerned, it should be 1/4th as the
deceased was survived by three minor son,
three minor son, widow, mother and three
sisters. As far as amount under nonpecuniary
heads
is
concerned,
the
appellants would be entitled to Rs.50,000/-.

9. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Annual Income: Rs.15,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs.6,000/-

iii. Total income : Rs.15,000 +
6,000 = Rs.21,000/-

iv. Income after deduction of
1/4th
towards
personal
expenses
:
Rs.15,750/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 18
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

vii.
Loss
of
dependency:
Rs.15,750 x 18 = Rs.2,83,500/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : Rs 50,000/-

ix.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.3,33,500/-

10. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned,
the
Tribunal
has
granted
conditional interest at the rate of 9% which
is bad. The claimants would be entitled to
6% rate of interest from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the date of award.
However, from the date of filing of this
appeal and till the delay was condoned, it
would be 3% and from the date the delay is
condoned, it would be 6% till the amount is
deposited.

11. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

12. 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 as directed above. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

13. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants. As
20 years have elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Account of
claimants in Nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.

14. This Court is thankful to the
counsel for getting this matter decided.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1270
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2104 of 2019

Smt. Maneesha Dubey & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Aakash Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section - 173- Appeal - Challenging the
rejection order of Claim Petition - in alleged an
Accident deceased was died due to fatal injuries
- FIR was lodge with highly delay of one year -
there were no any information was St.d in FIR
regarding involvement of any Car as well as not
in the Medico-Legal-Report of the Hospital
where the deceased was admitted - testimony
of eye witness is doubtful because there were
no any evidence or reason given by the eye
witness why he did not tell the number of Car at
the time of accident - after threadbare analysis
of evidence on record - learned Tribunal has
rightly appreciated the evidence and rejected
the Claim - Appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
(Para - 8, 9, 10, 11)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ravi Vs Badri Narayan & ors. (2011 (0)
Supreme (SC) 201),