# Smt. Vidyawati (Deceased) & Ors v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-08
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1843 of 2002
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vidyawati-deceased-ors-v-the-new-india-assurance-company-ltd-ors-49201
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 173-challenge to-claim-deceased
was
a
primary
teacher
the tribunal
considered her income Rs. 58,968/- p.a.
but has not granted future loss of incomethe deceased was survived by three
dependents-Total compensation would be
Rs. 5,74,584/- and rate of interest would
be 7% from the date of the institution of
claim petition. (Para 1 to 27)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9,72,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/-

34. In the result FAFO No. 1111 of
2019 succeeds and is allowed.

35. It is ordered that the compensation
awarded by this judgment and award shall
be payable by the insurer and not the
owner.

36. FAFO No. 2886 of 2011 succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.
11,22,000/-. 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 realisation. Any
sum of money already deposited with the
Tribunal pursuant to the impugned award,
or the interim orders of this Court shall be
adjusted against the award. The other
directions made by the Tribunal shall
remain intact.

37. Costs easy in both appeals.

38. The sum of statutory deposit made
by the owner shall be refunded to him.

39. Let the lower court record be sent
to the Tribunal at once.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 240
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2022

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 1843 of 2002

Smt. Vidyawati (Deceased) & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, Sri Ashok Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 173-challenge to-claim-deceased
was
a
primary
teacher
the tribunal
considered her income Rs. 58,968/- p.a.
but has not granted future loss of incomethe deceased was survived by three
dependents-Total compensation would be
Rs. 5,74,584/- and rate of interest would
be 7% from the date of the institution of
claim petition. (Para 1 to 27)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. NIC Vs Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC
680

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

3. New India Assr. Co. Ltd Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors. (2021) SCC Online SC 822

4. Sushil Kumar & ors. Vs M/s. SamparkLojestic
Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (2017) 35 LCD 1311

5. Jiuti Devi & ors.. Vs Manoj (2022) SCC OnLine
All 46

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a claimant's appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ 4th
Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur
vide judgment and award dated 26.03.2002
passed in MACP No. 38 of 1999.
2 All. Smt. Vidyawati (Deceased) & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
241

2. The claim petition was instituted by
the deceased's widow, Smt. Vidyawati with
a case that on 31.12.1998 at about 4:30 in
the evening hours, Ram Krishna Kushwaha
was proceeding on a bicycle from Kanari
Bankey after teaching there to the school in
Village Thingri, within the local limits of
Police
Station
Alhaganj,
District
Shahjahanpur. He was a teacher in the
primary school at Village Thingri, Tehsil
Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur. He was
proceeding on the left hand side of the
road. At the fateful moment, a DCM Truck,
bearing registration No. DBL-9399, green
in colour, approached from the Jalalabad
side. It was driven by its driver, Dhain
Singh (for short, 'the driver') at a high
speed
and
negligently.
The
driver
proceeded without sounding a horn and
struck Ram Krishna's bicycle, crushing it
under its wheels. Ram Krishna was thrown
off and fell to the ground, sustaining
grievous injuries. He died on the spot.

3. At the time of his demise, Ram
Krishna Singh was aged 55 years. His
employment as a teacher with the primary
school provided him a monthly income of
Rs. 6500/-. His exertions in the fields
would yield a further income of Rs. 4000/-,
making it a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month.
The deceased's dependents are his widow,
Vidyawati, aged 52 years and two sons,
Haripal, aged 29 years and Sripal, aged 27
years. The registered owner of the
offending vehicle is one Raj Singh son of
Amar Singh, a resident of Shergarhi, P.S.
Shastri Nagar, District Meerut (for short,
'the owner'). The offending vehicle was
insured with the New India Assurance
Company Limited, District Shahjahanpur,
which shall hereinafter be called 'the
Insurers'. The claim petition was instituted,
seeking a total compensation in the sum of
Rs.19,50,000/-.

4. A written statement was filed on
behalf of the Insurers generally denying the
allegations in the claim petition. It was
averred that no cause of action arose to the
claimants to institute the present petition,
which is not signed and verified in
accordance with law. The petition was
barred, according to the Insurers, by
Section 64 of the Insurance Act, 1938. It
was also pleaded that all necessary parties
have not been impleaded, rendering the
petition bad for non-joinder. The deceased
was not employed and had no source of
income. The offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident, that led to the
victim's death nor did the accident result in
injuries to him. The deceased's bicycle
collided with some unknown vehicle on
account of his rashness and negligence and
the offending vehicle has been involved
deliberately after ascertaining its number in
order to institute the present claim petition.

5. On the date of the accident, the
offending vehicle did not have a valid
Insurance Policy. Upon verification of the
Insurance Policy, it has not been found in
order and the compensation demanded is
beyond the worth of the policy. The
compensation is much on the higher side.
In order to prove the accident, documentary
evidence, such as copies of the First
Information
Report,
Autopsy
Report,
Release Order of the vehicle and other
documents relating to the offending vehicle
have not been filed. It is also the Insurers'
case that the driver did not possess a valid
driving licence. The offending vehicle did
not have a fitness certificate or a route
permit, where it was operating. The owner
and the driver have committed violation of
the policy, entitling the Insurers to relief
from their liability. There is a collusion
between the owner and the claimant,
disentitling the claimant to relief.
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. A separate written statement was
filed on behalf of the owner, who generally
denied the case in the claim petition. It is
the owner's case that the claim petition does
not comply with the provisions of the Act.
It is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. No cause of action arises to the
claimant. The compensation demanded is
not in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. It is pleaded that on the date of the
accident i.e. 31.12.1998, the owner's
vehicle, bearing registration No. DBL-9399
had all valid papers to ply, including the
Registration Certificate, Insurance Policy,
Route Permit, Goods Tax Payment receipt
and was driven by a driver, who held a
valid and effective driving licence. The
offending vehicle is insured with the
Insurers vide Cover Note No. 0326, valid
from 01.06.1998 to 30.05.1999. The
Insurers have been paid the due premium.
The driver's driving licence No. T239/MRT193 was issued on 17.03.1993 by
the Licensing Authority at Meerut. It was
valid and effective from 15.06.1996 to
25.05.1999. The claimant inherited the
deceased's property and is, therefore, not
entitled
to
compensation.
The
claim
petition is barred by limitation.

7. A separate written statement was
filed by the driver, denying the allegations
in the claim petition. It is averred that the
driver held a valid driving licence, bearing
No. T-239/MRT193, issued on 17.03.1993
by the Regional Transport Officer's Office
at Meerut. It was valid up to 24.05.1999.
The accident described in the claim petition
happened on account of the deceased's
negligence. The claimant is not entitled to
any compensation, which in any case is not
payable by the driver. Whatever liability
may be ascertained on account of the
accident, the same ought to fall on the
owner's or the Insurers' shoulders.

8. On the pleadings of parties, the
following issues were framed:

"1. Whether Ram Krishan Singh
died in the accident on 31.12.98 on account
of rash and negligent driving by the driver
of vehicle No. DBL-9399 in the manner
alleged in the petition?

2. Whether the petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid
driving licence or not on the alleged date
and time? In either case, its effect?

4. Relief?"

9. The Tribunal answered Issues Nos.
1, 2 and 3 in favour of the claimant and
against the Insurers, owner and the driver.
There is no cavil about the findings on
Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The cause in this
appeal is limited to the quantum of
compensation, to which the claimant or the
other two dependents of the deceased, his
sons, are entitled.

10. It must be recorded that pending
this appeal, the claimant, Smt. Vidyawati
passed away and so did Haripal Singh, one
of the two sons of the deceased. The other
son, Sripal Singh, who was arrayed as
respondent No.5 to the appeal, was
transposed as appellant No. 1/3, after the
claimant's demise. The interest of Haripal
Singh and that of the claimant, is also
represented by Utkarsh Singh son of late
Haripal Singh, a minor represented through
his next friend, Sripal Singh and Smt. Reeta
Singh wife of Brahm Singh, daughter of
Haripal Singh. Utkarsh Singh, Smt. Reeta
Singh and Sripal Singh now figure in the
array of the appellants as appellants
Nos.1/1, 1/2 and 1/3, due to developments
pending appeal. All of them together shall
also be referred to as the claimant (unless
2 All. Smt. Vidyawati (Deceased) & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
243
the
context
requires
an
individual
reference).

11. Heard Mr. Rishi Bhushan Jauhari,
learned Counsel for the claimant and Mr.
Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel appearing
for the Insurers. No one appears on behalf
of the owner and the driver.

12. It is argued by the learned
Counsel
for
the
claimant
that
the
compensation
awarded
is
grossly
inadequate, inasmuch as a wrong multiplier
has been applied and nothing has been
awarded towards future prospects. It is also
argued that the claimant is also entitled to
compensation under the conventional heads
in accordance with the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company v.
Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC
680.

13. The learned Counsel for the
Insurers has supported the the impugned
award and says that it is a just award,
which does not call for any interference.

14. The basis to work out the
dependency is the deceased's monthly
income. A perusal of the record and the
findings of the Tribunal, that are not in
issue, show that the deceased Ram Krishna
was a Headmaster in the primary school,
where his basic salary, last drawn on
31.12.1998, was Rs. 1600/- with a D.A. of
Rs. 2822/-. He was in receipt of interim
relief in the figures of Rs. 100/-, 166/- and
166/- per month, leading to a total monthly
emoluments of Rs. 4914/-. It is the
aforesaid monthly income of the deceased,
on the basis of which the claimant's
dependency has to be worked out. The
income from agriculture, claimed as the
other source on behalf of the claimant, has
not been accepted by the Tribunal, though
there is not much discussion about it. This
Court also, on going through the evidence
on record, is not inclined to accept any
income for the deceased, claimed to accrue
from his agricultural exploits. There is not
much convincing evidence about it. The
annual income of the deceased, worked out
on a monthly salary of Rs.4914/-, would be
a figure of Rs.58,968/-.

15. The deceased left behind three
dependents. Going by the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.)
and
others
vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC
121, the Tribunal is, therefore, right in
deducting
one-third
towards
personal
expenses of the deceased.

16. In order to determine the total loss
of dependency, the Tribunal has applied a
multiplier of '8'. The deceased on the date
of his death was aged fifty-seven and a half
years. In accordance with the law laid
down in Paragraph No. 40 of the report in
Sarla Verma for the age group 56-60
years, the applicable multiplier is '9'. It is
not '8'. The Tribunal has, therefore, adopted
a lower multiplier than that applicable.

17. The Tribunal has not awarded
anything towards future prospects. The
deceased was a salaried man. And, future
prospects
for
salaried
men
are
conventionally regarded in our country as
the highest. It must be remarked that it is
the other classes of persons, may be
earning much more in their avocations or
business, who have traditionally been
suspect about their future prospects; but,
never the venerable class of servicemen. In
Pranay Sethi
(supra), which
firmly
established that the self-employed too had
future prospects, may be a little lesser than
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the service class, provides for future
prospects for those employed on salaries in
the following terms:

"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 inReshma 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."

18. The next issue that arises for
consideration is whether future prospects to
which the claimant is entitled would be
governed by the law laid down in Pranay
Sethi or Rule 220-A (3) of the U.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998 (for short, the Rules
of 1998). This issue fell for consideration
of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Urmila
Shukla and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
822, where it has been observed:

"9. It is to be noted that the
validity of the Rules was not, in any way,
questioned in the instant matter and thus
the only question that we are called upon to
consider is whether in its application, subRule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of the Rules must
be given restricted scope or it must be
allowed to operate fully.

10.T he discussion on the point
inPranay Sethiwas from the standpoint of
arriving at "just compensation" in terms of
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.

11. If an indicia is made
available in the form of a statutory
instrument which affords a favourable
treatment,
the
decision
inPranay
Sethicannot be taken to have limited the
operation of such statutory provision
specially when the validity of the Rules was
not
put
under
any
challenge.
The
prescription of 15% in cases where the
deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60
years as stated inPranay Sethicannot be
taken as maxima. In the absence of any
governing principle
available
in
the
statutory regime, it was only in the form of
an indication. If a statutory instrument has
devised a formula which affords better or
greater benefit, such statutory instrument
must be allowed to operate unless the
statutory instrument is otherwise found to
be invalid.

12. We, therefore, reject the
submission advanced on behalf of the
appellant and affirm the view taken by the
Tribunal as well as the High Court and
dismiss this appeal without any order as to
costs."

19. It is, thus, settled that the future
prospects in the State of Uttar Pradesh have
to be determined in accordance Rule 220A(3) of the Rules of 1998 and not the
decision in Pranay Sethi.
2 All. Smt. Vidyawati (Deceased) & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
245

20. The other issue which arises for
consideration is: whether 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, would apply
retrospectively to an accident that took
place much before the amendment? This
question was considered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar and
others v. M/s. Sampark Lojastic Private
Limited and others, 2017 (35) LCD 1311,
where it has been held:

"31. Rule 220-A was inserted in
the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 in view of the various decisions of the
law courts for providing benefit on account of
future prospects of the injured/deceased. It
provides for addition of certain percentage of
the income of the injured/deceased in his
actual income depending upon the age of the
injured/deceased
for
the
purposes
of
determination of the compensation. The
aforesaid
Rule
came
into
effect
on
26.09.2011 after the decision of the claim
petition but before filing of the appeal though
the accident took place on 08.05.2010 much
before the enforcement of the above Rule.

32. It is in view of the above that
an argument is being raised that Rule 220-A
of the Rules which came into effect on
26.09.2011 would not apply to the accident
which had taken place on 08.05.2010.

33. In Ram Sarup Vs. Munshi AIR
1963 SC 553 it was laid down that a change
in law during the pendency of an appeal has
to be taken into account and will cover the
rights of the parties.

34. The view expressed above was
followed by the Supreme Court in Mula Vs.
Godhu AIR 1971 SC 89.

35. In Dayawati Vs. Inderjit AIR
1966 SC 1423 the court had observed as
under:-If the new law speaks in language,
which expressly or by clear intendment,
takes in even pending matters, the court of
trial as well as the court of appeal must
have regard to an intention so expressed,
and the court of appeal may give effect to
such a law even after the judgment of the
court of first instance.

36. In Amarjit Kaur Vs. Pritam
Singh AIR 1974 SC 2068 effect was given
to the change in law during the pendency of
an appeal as the hearing of an appeal under
the procedural law of this country is in the
nature of rehearing of the suit by superior
court.

37. It was in the light of the
above decisions that in Lakshmi Narayan
Guin and others Vs. Niranjan Modak AIR
1985 SC 111 it was held that a change in
law during the pendency of an appeal has
to be taken into account and will cover the
right of the parties.

38. The aforesaid decision was
followed by a Division Bench of this court
in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Smt. Madhu Sharma and others, 2003
(4) AWC 2620 which was a case in relation
to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
and it was observed that it is apparent that
the change in law during the pendency of
the original proceedings has to be taken
into account so as to cover the rights of the
parties.

39. In view of above decision
the view expressed by the Division
Bench of this court in ICICI Lombard
(Supra) is not of good law as it does not
takes into account the decisions referred
to above in holding that the Rule 220-A
of the Rules which came into effect on
26.09.2011 would not apply to the
accident that took place prior to the said
date only for the reason that the Rule
was
not
specifically
stated
to
be
retrospective in nature."
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. As per the law laid down by the
Division Bench in Sushil Kumar (supra),
which apparently binds this Court, the award of
future prospects is to be made in accordance
with Rule 220-A(3) of the Rules of 1998,
notwithstanding the fact that accident happened
prior to the amendment. Now, going by Rule
220-A(3), considering the age of the deceased,
which is more than 50 years, 20% is to be
added to his income towards future prospects.

22. Still another matter which requires
consideration is that about the claimant's
entitlement under the conventional heads. Here
again, the principle in Pranay Sethi is relevant,
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."

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 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] . The justification for
grant of consortium, as we find from
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] , 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
2 All. Smt. Vidyawati (Deceased) & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
247
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. Though 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] 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
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)

23. So far as entitlement to
compensation for the loss of parental
consortium to the children of the deceased
is concerned, there is a distinction to be
made between children who are minors and
those adults. I dealt with the question in
Jiuti Devi and others v. Manoj, 2022
SCC OnLine All 46 and held:

"39. Loss of consortium, that
includes
parental
consortium,
unlike
dependency, is not some tangible economic
loss. It is an emotional loss to the next of
kin of the deceased-victim of a motor
accident. In case of parental loss, it causes
a particular deprivation to minors and
young children, about whom it is said by
the Supreme Court in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias
Satwinder Kaur, to borrow the words of
their Lordships, "Parental Consortium is
awarded to the children who lose the care
and protection of their parents in motor
vehicle accidents".

40. To the understanding of this
Court, the impact of loss of parental
consortium upon the deceased's children,
in the very nature of that loss, is
dependent upon the children's age. The
loss of parent is a disheartening and
emotional event for the child at any age
of his maturity, but by the nature of the
principle
governing
award
of
compensation under the head of parental
consortium, the deprivation, that is
suffered by a child or a minor, appears to
be the determinative and entitling fact. A
child, who has advanced into matured
adulthood, is married or otherwise in the
mainstream of life, would not be entitled
to compensation under that head."
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In the present case, both the
children being adults, compensation for the
loss of parental consortium would not be
payable. The claimant would, however, be
entitled to compensation for the loss of
spousal consortium.

25. However, so far as the loss of
estate
and
financial
expenses
are
concerned, that has to be awarded in one
set, according to the rule in Pranay Sethi.
Thus, the awarded compensation under the
conventional heads, as determined by the
Tribunal, is erroneous and the same too has
to be modified.

26. In view of the principles
applicable
for
the
determination
of
compensation payable to the claimant and
the other dependents, this Court proceeds to
work out the same as follows :

(i)
Monthly Income (of
the deceased)
= 4914/-
(ii)
Monthly
Income+Future
Prospects
(monthly
income x 20%) =
4914+983
= 5897/-
(iii
)
Annual Income (of
the
deceased)
=
5897x12
= 70,764/-
(iv
)
Annual Dependency
= Annual Income -
one-third
deduction
towards
personal
expenses
of
the
deceased = 7076423588
= 47,176/-
(v)
Total Dependency =
Annual Dependency
x Applied Multiplier
= 47,176x9
= 4,24,584/
-
(vi
)
Claimants'
entitlement
towards
= 70,000/-
conventional heads =
Loss of Estate +
Funeral Expenses +
dependents'
Consortium
=15000+15000+4000
0
The total compensation
would therefore, work out
to
a
figure
of
Rs.
4,24,584+ Rs. 70,000
= 5,74,584/
-

27. 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.
5,74,584/-. 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 the award. The other directions of
the Tribunal in the award shall remain
intact. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 248
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Government Appeal No. 967 of 1992

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Devraj ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant: