# State Of U.P. & Ors v. Km. Anubhooti @ Eena

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 735
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 876 of 1992
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-km-anubhooti-eena-48153
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Section 173 - Appeal - Injuries caused to
minor - filed claim petition through legal
guardian - tribunal raised issues and granted
a sum of Rs.2,27,560/- with a rate of interest
12% - State felt aggrieved by award of
compensation to the respondent - hence
appeal.(Para - 2,4)

HELD:-Negligence proved and involvement
also proved. Driver never stepped into the
witness box, child is a third party and,
therefore, also this Court cannot take a
different view then that taken by the tribunal.
Compensation as awarded to the minor
cannot be said to be exorbitant. Amount of
Rs.2, 27,560/- for the injuries caused to the
minor even in those days cannot be said to be
such which requires any interference. The
interim relief shall stand vacated forthwith.
The amount be deposited with interest at the
rate of 9% . (Para -8,9 )
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal partly allowed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Km. Anubhooti @ Eena
735
29 (SC) cannot be made applicable. Even if
we go by the fact that the driver and the
owner did not appear before Tribunal,
subject to a rider to prove that the owner
proves that he had taken all cautions,
recovery right is granted to the Insurance
Company.

20. As far as quantum is concerned, in
view of the decision of the this Court in
F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 (National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati
Devi And 2 Others) decided on 27.7.2016
and as per the oral submission of learned
counsel for the respondent-claimant, an
additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- is granted.
The reason for granting additional amount
is that while granting the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal has not added
any amount under the head of future loss of
income. His income was considered to be
Rs.5000/- and a lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
was granted by the Tribunal without any
further bifurcation which is bad in eye of
law but, however as the accident took place
in the year 1992 and 30 years have
practically
elapsed
a
lump
sum
of
Rs.25,000/- would be admissible to the
injured-claimant over and above the
amount granted by the Tribunal.

21. The rate of interest of 12%
granted by the Tribunal is not disturbed
looking to the passage of time and the
injuries which the claimant has sustained.
However,
this
additional
sum
of
Rs.25,000/- will carry 6% flat rate of
interest.

22. In view of the above, this appeal
is partly allowed. The remaining amount be
deposited with the accrued interest and the
claimant be given the same without
keeping the same in fixed deposit as more
than 30 years have elapsed and the claimant
must be in his prime now.

23. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal forthwith
----------
(2022)02ILR A735
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 876 of 1992

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Km. Anubhooti @ Eena ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri A.Kumar, Sri kamal Kumar Singh

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Section 173 - Appeal - Injuries caused to
minor - filed claim petition through legal
guardian - tribunal raised issues and granted
a sum of Rs.2,27,560/- with a rate of interest
12% - State felt aggrieved by award of
compensation to the respondent - hence
appeal.(Para - 2,4)

HELD:-Negligence proved and involvement
also proved. Driver never stepped into the
witness box, child is a third party and,
therefore, also this Court cannot take a
different view then that taken by the tribunal.
Compensation as awarded to the minor
cannot be said to be exorbitant. Amount of
Rs.2, 27,560/- for the injuries caused to the
minor even in those days cannot be said to be
such which requires any interference. The
interim relief shall stand vacated forthwith.
The amount be deposited with interest at the
rate of 9% . (Para -8,9 )
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal partly allowed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sita Ram Moti Lal Vs Santasu Prasad Jai
Shanker Bhutt, 1966 ACC 89 (SC)

2. HP Road Transport Corp. Shimla Vs Naem &
anr., 1987 ACJ 642

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent; and perused the record.

2. By way of this appeal, the State has
felt
aggrieved
by
the
award
of
compensation
to
the
respondent
on
11.1.1991
at
5.00
p.m.
lost
the
compensation sought was Rs.2,27,560/- for
injuries caused to the minor who filed the
claim petition through legal guardian.

3. The facts as they culled out from
the record are as follows:-

"That on 11.1.1991 at 5.00
p.m. Km. Anubhuti was playing on her
tiny tricycle at the gate of resident No.5B
Upadhaya
Colony,
Civil
Lines,
Rampur. The respondent Ram Sagar
Divedi driving jeep no.US V 3071
belonging to soil conservation department
of Rampur District of the Govt. of U.P.
rashly and negligently hit the claimant,
who sustained grievous heed injury and
violent nervous shock. She was shifted to
the District Hospital, Rampur where
doctors attending on her advised her
shifting to AIIMS, New Delhi or any
other
nursing
home
with
specialist
doctors for treatment but there she could
not get admission. She was taken to
Sahgals Neurological Research Institute,
New Delhi for treatment. The grievous
head
injury
allegedly
rendered
her
mentally
affirm
and
permanently
disabled. Therefore, she could not be
married and would have to depend on her
family. A sum of Rs.10,27,560/- has been
sought as compensation on different
heads as detailed in the petition."

4. Respondent No.3, namely, driver
of the vehicle did not contest the
litigation the jeep it was alleged the jeep
was not involved in the incident in
question and the jeep could not have been
used by the driver as there was entry in
the log book. The tribunal raised issues
and granted a sum of Rs.2,27,560/- with a
rate of interest 12%, it is this that as
aggrieved the State authorities.

5. The factual scenario goes to show
that the log book entry and the Soil
Conservation Officer tried to help the
appellant.
However
the
tribunal
has
considered the judgment of the Apex Court
titled Sita Ram Moti Lal v. Santasu
Prasad Jai Shanker Bhutt, 1966 ACC 89
(SC) the fact that the vehicle belonged to
the Soil Corporation and was being driven
by authorized person and is involved in the
accident which is proved by documentary
evidence.

6. The negligence is proved and
involvement is also proved. The driver
never stepped into the witness box, child is
a third party and, therefore, also this Court
cannot take a different view then that taken
by the tribunal which was relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in HP Road
Transport Corporation Shimla v. Naem
and another, 1987 ACJ 642.

7. In view of the matter, the
compensation as awarded to the minor
2 All. Smt Seema Yadav & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Bajpai & Ors.
737
cannot be said to be exorbitant for the
following reasons:-

(i) the child has suffered grave
injuries;

(ii) the tribunal has considered
her condition and has held that though the
multiplier is of the higher side that she
would not be able to earn in future.

8. The amount of Rs.2,27,560/-for
the injuries caused to the minor even in
those days cannot be said to be such
which requires any interference.

9. The interim relief shall stand
vacated forthwith. The amount be
deposited however with interest at the
rate of 9% to that extent.

10. The amount kept in fixed
deposit shall be released in favour of
minor who by now must have attained
majority.

11. This appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
shall stands partly allowed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A737
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1447 of 2005

Smt Seema Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Vinod Kumar Bajpai & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
quantum of compensation - Income Tax
Act, 1961 - Section 194A (3) (ix) - total
amount
of
interest,
accrued
on the
principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis - if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/- - insurance company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate
amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted
at Source'- Order of investment not
passed because applicants /claimants are
neither illiterate nor rustic villagers. (Para
- 8,18)

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- -
with interest @ 6% as compensation - not
granted any amount towards future loss of
income of the deceased - multiplier applied 6.
(Para - 1,6)

HELD:-Total
compensation
awarded
:
14,72,800. Multiplier applied 11. Deceased in
the age bracket of (51-60) years as salaried
person, 20% of the income added as future
prospects . Rate of interest fixed at 7.5%.
Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal
stand modified. Respondent-Insurance Company
shall deposit the amount along with additional
amount within a period of 12 weeks from today
with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the amount is
deposited. (Para - 6,7,13)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila
Shukla & ors., 2021 ACJ 2081,