# Surendra Pratap & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 473
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002174 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-pratap-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48545
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Tort Law - liability under tort -
Quantum of compensation - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 304 A - The Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (PLI Act) -
Section 3, 6,7,8 - 'just compensation' -
under Section 6 of the PLI Act - Collector
is bound to determine and pay the
compensation
which
is
a
'just
compensation' - courts/ tribunals are not
only
expected
to
grant
'just
compensation', it is the duty of the court
to grant 'just compensation' especially
when the claim arises out of the socioeconomic legislation - determination of
compensation - parameters be established
-
age
,
income
&
number
of
the
dependents
of
deceased
-
claim
of
compensation on both pecuniary and nonpecuniary heads. (Para - 22,23 )

(B) Tort Law - The Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 - Section 3 - provides
for
grant
of
compensation
on
the
principles of 'No fault' - confines to the
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quantum of compensation to the extent
indicated in the Schedule, Section 6 -
provides for compensation other than
under 'No fault' - empowers the grant of
compensation as specified in Section 7 of
the PLI Act - liability under a tort in
respect of the public undertaking would
arise on establishing the legal wrong/ tort
- in the case where liability is claimed
against
public
undertaking
which
is
amenable to writ jurisdiction, the power
under Article 226 can be exercised for
grant of just and proper compensation.
(Para -16,20,)
Death occurred on account of electrocution -
improper maintenance of electricity lines by
respondent
Corporation
-
negligence
of
respondent Corporation - petitioners made
several applications for grant of compensation -
no compensation paid - FIR registered against
officers of electricity department - claim petition
filed under Section 6 of PLI Act before District
Magistrate - amount of compensation awarded
is arbitrary and cannot be termed as 'just
compensation' - merely followed a Government
Order by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lac) as compensation - which is neither provided
under Act nor under Rules - amount awarded be
enhanced - petitioner be paid just compensation
for which he is entitled in accordance with law.
(Para -2,3,4,5,13 )

HELD:- Petitioners entitled for payment of
compensation along with interest @ 6% from
the date of accident up to actual payment/
realization.(Para - 27,29)

Writ petition disposed off. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Surendra Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition),
Kanpur
Nagar.
Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner, as may have been
advised at that time, instead of filing
objection under Section 64 of the 2013 Act,
preferred appeal to the Commissioner,
Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The same was
rejected as not maintainable.

7. In terms of Section 64 of the 2013
Act, if any land owner is aggrieved by the
assessment of amount of compensation on
account of acquisition of land, he has
remedy to file representation before the
Collector within six weeks from the date of
award. What we find in the case in hand is
that grievance was raised by the petitioner
by filing appeal to the Commissioner
within six weeks from the date of the
award. The same was sent by him through
registered-post. After filing the appeal,
petitioner had been pursuing his appeal but
could not get any relief, as wrong forum
was invoked.

8. Be that as it may, it is a case of a
poor land owner, whose land was acquired
and immediately thereafter he has raised
the
issue
regarding
amount
of
compensation though filing an appeal to the
Commissioner, but, in our opinion, the
same should be considered as objection
filed in terms of Section 64 of the 2013
Act, so that the petitioner is not deprived of
assessment of fair compensation on account
of acquisition of his land. The aforesaid
objection, which was sent by him through
registered post to the Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur
and
copy
whereof is annexed as Annexure-4, be dealt
with by Collector concerned in terms of
provisions of Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
Needful shall be done within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.

9. The petition stands allowed in
aforesaid terms.
----------
(2022)05ILR A473
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 1002174 of 2015
&
Writ C No. 1002173 of 2015

Surendra Pratap & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shiva Nand Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohd. Murtaza Khan, Prashant
Arora, Vashu Deo Mishra

(A) Tort Law - liability under tort -
Quantum of compensation - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 304 A - The Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (PLI Act) -
Section 3, 6,7,8 - 'just compensation' -
under Section 6 of the PLI Act - Collector
is bound to determine and pay the
compensation
which
is
a
'just
compensation' - courts/ tribunals are not
only
expected
to
grant
'just
compensation', it is the duty of the court
to grant 'just compensation' especially
when the claim arises out of the socioeconomic legislation - determination of
compensation - parameters be established
-
age
,
income
&
number
of
the
dependents
of
deceased
-
claim
of
compensation on both pecuniary and nonpecuniary heads. (Para - 22,23 )

(B) Tort Law - The Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 - Section 3 - provides
for
grant
of
compensation
on
the
principles of 'No fault' - confines to the
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quantum of compensation to the extent
indicated in the Schedule, Section 6 -
provides for compensation other than
under 'No fault' - empowers the grant of
compensation as specified in Section 7 of
the PLI Act - liability under a tort in
respect of the public undertaking would
arise on establishing the legal wrong/ tort
- in the case where liability is claimed
against
public
undertaking
which
is
amenable to writ jurisdiction, the power
under Article 226 can be exercised for
grant of just and proper compensation.
(Para -16,20,)
Death occurred on account of electrocution -
improper maintenance of electricity lines by
respondent
Corporation
-
negligence
of
respondent Corporation - petitioners made
several applications for grant of compensation -
no compensation paid - FIR registered against
officers of electricity department - claim petition
filed under Section 6 of PLI Act before District
Magistrate - amount of compensation awarded
is arbitrary and cannot be termed as 'just
compensation' - merely followed a Government
Order by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lac) as compensation - which is neither provided
under Act nor under Rules - amount awarded be
enhanced - petitioner be paid just compensation
for which he is entitled in accordance with law.
(Para -2,3,4,5,13 )

HELD:- Petitioners entitled for payment of
compensation along with interest @ 6% from
the date of accident up to actual payment/
realization.(Para - 27,29)

Writ petition disposed off. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bheem Sen Vs St. of U.P. & ors.., 2019 (6)
ADJ 586

2. Yas Pal Singh (Minor) & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.., 2017 (5) ADJ 696

3. U.P.P.C.L. & ors.. Vs D.M./ Collection,
Sultanpur & ors.. , Writ Petition No.42 (MS) of
2005

4. Nilabati Behera Vs St. of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC
746
5. St. of M.P. Vs Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4
SCC 262

6. People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs U.O.I.,
(1997) 3 SCC 433

7. Kaushalya Vs St. of Punj., (1999) 6 SCC 754

8. Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Vs St. of
Bihar, (1991) 3 SCC 482

9. Jacob George (Dr.) Vs St. of Kerala, (1994) 3
SCC 430

10. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs St.
of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37

11. Manju Bhatia Vs New Delhi Municipal
Council, (1997) 6 SCC 370

12. National Insurance Company Limited Vs
Pranay Sethi & ors.., (2017) 16 SCC 680

13. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors.. Vs D.T.C. & anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121

14. General Manager, Kerala St. R.T.C. Vs.
Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioners as well as Sri Indrajeet Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State and Sri
Vasudeo Mishra, who appears on behalf of
the respondents no.3 and 4.

2. The facts that emerged from Writ-C
No.1002174 of 2015 are that one Sri Amit
Kumar Pandey died on account of coming
into contact with live wire on 12.10.2011 at
08:45 AM due to electric shock. It is also
on record that with regard to the incident,
an FIR was registered as Case Crime
No.358 of 2011, under Section 304A of the
IPC against the officers of the electricity
department on account of the death of Sri
Amit Kumar Pandey. The petitioners made
5 All. Surendra Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
several
applications
for
grant
of
compensation but the same was not done. It
is specifically pleaded in para 8 of the writ
petition that with regard to the live wires, a
complaint was also made to the electricity
department and apprehension was also
expressed that the improper laying of
electricity lines and that too fraudulently
can lead to an accident anytime which can
result in loss of life and property.

3. As no compensation was paid by
the electricity department, an application
was filed under the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 (in short ' the PLI Act')
before the District Magistrate wherein it
was stated that at the time of accident, the
age of the deceased Amit Kumar Pandey
was 23 years and was earned Rs.9,000/- per
month. It was also stated that Amit Kumar
Pandey was survived by his father, mother,
wife and two minor children. It was also
stated that on the date of incident i.e.
12.10.2011 at about 08:45 AM, the
deceased was working along with his uncle
Brijesh Pandey. While going to the field,
the uncle of the deceased came in contact
with the electricity and when the deceased
tried to save him, he got electrocuted and
died. It is also recorded that after the death
of Amit Kumar Pandey, postmortem was
also conducted. The cause of death as
shown in the postmortem report is shock as
a result of electrocution.

4. The facts that emerge from Writ-C
No.1002173 of 2015 are that as per the
allegations one Brijesh Pandey died in the
same incident in which Amit Kumar
Pandey
also
died
arising
out
of
electrocution, as such, a claim petition was
filed under Section 6 of the PLI Act before
the District Magistrate alleging that the
claimants i.e. father and mother were
entitled for compensation on account of
death of Brijesh Pandey. It is stated that he
also died in the incident which took place
on 12.10.2011 in which Amit Kumar
Pandey died. An FIR was lodged and a
postmortem was conducted over the body
of Brijesh Pandey which discloses the
cause of death as shock as a result of
electrocution. It was alleged that late
Brijesh Pandey was aged about 28 years
and was earning Rs.9000/- per month and
on the application of the claimants
petitioners herein, the District Magistrate
granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac) vide order dated
13.03.2015 on the same reasoning as
contained in the award passed in the case of
Amit Kumar Pandey.

5. The Counsel for the petitioners
argues that the amount of compensation as
awarded
by
the
District
Magistrate
amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lac) is arbitrary and cannot be termed as
'just compensation'. He argues that in terms
of the mandate of Section 6 of the PLI Act,
it was incumbent upon the authority to
award 'just compensation' after an inquiry
which the District Magistrate has failed to
do. He argues that the District Magistrate
has merely followed a Government Order
by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lac) as compensation which is neither
provided under the Act nor under the Rules
and thus, it is prayed that the amount as
awarded on 13.03.2015 be enhanced and
the petitioner be paid just compensation for
which he is entitled in accordance with law.

6. In support of the said submissions,
the petitioner places reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Bheem Sen vs State of U.P. and others;
2019 (6) ADJ 586 whereby this Court after
considering the two earlier judgments of
the High Court as well as the judgment of
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had proceeded
to
award
the
compensation
of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lac). He also
places reliance on another judgment of this
Court in the case of Yas Pal Singh (Minor)
and another vs State of U.P. and others;
2017 (5) ADJ 696. He also drawn my
attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court wherein considering the
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view
that it is incumbent upon all the courts to
ensure just compensation irrespective of the
fact that whether the same is claimed or
not.

7. The Counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, argues that as no finding of
fault has been recorded, the maximum
compensation that could have been paid is
provided under Section 3 of the Act and in
terms of the Schedule of the said Act. The
petitioners could be paid only Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), however,
in terms of the Government Order issued
by the concerned Department, an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) has been
paid, thus, the order of the District
Magistrate cannot be termed as arbitrary.
He further argues that in any case, no
inquiry to the quantum of compensation
has been done by the District Magistrate.

8. The Counsel for the respondent
places reliance on the judgment of this
Court passed in the case of U.P. Power
Corporation Limited and others vs District
Magistrate/ Collection, Sultanpur and
others decided on 07.09.2021 in Writ
Petition No.42 (MS) of 2005.

9. In the light of the arguments as
raised between the parties, this Court is to
consider
whether
the
amount
of
compensation awarded can be termed as
'just' and whether the court while exercise
the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can enhance the
compensation from the face of pleadings
exchanged between the parties?

10. Considering the claim of the
petitioners that the incident occurred on
account
of
the
negligence
of
the
department, specific pleadings in this
regard has been made in para 8 of the writ
petition wherein it has been stated that
admittedly complaints were made with
regard to the improper keeping of the
electricity wire and an apprehension had
also expressed that the negligent act of the
department
in
not
maintaining
the
electricity can cause accident and loss of
life and of property. Annexure-5 of the writ
petition is an application moved on
23.11.2006.

11. To elaborate further paragraph 8
of the writ petition and its reply as
contained in para 7 of the counter affidavit
are quoted hereinbelow:

"8. That in support of his claim,
the petitioners have also filed the copy of
several applications which were filed by the
uncle of the deceased at the time of forceful
electric connection over the land of
petitioner upon which junior Engineer
Electric has been directed to visit the spot
and insure no danger took place, but
inspite of repeated directions given by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Executive
Engineer
and
District
Magistrate,
Sultanpur nothing has been ensured by
Junior engineer Electric and as such due to
grass and negligent act of electricity
department an incident took place in which
the son of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and
husband of the petitioner no.3 and father of
the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 died. The copies
5 All. Surendra Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
477
of the applications moved by the uncle of
the deceased before the opposite parties are
being annexed herewith collectively as
Annexure No.5 to this writ petition.

7. That the contents of paragraph
8 of the writ petition as stated is not correct
hence denied."

12. A perusal of the award itself
indicates that the stand of the electricity
department before the District Magistrate
was that one of the residents of the village
Ram Samhar had extracted the electricity
by
extending
a
cable
without
the
permission of the department in an illegal
manner and on receiving the information of
the accident, the electricity department had
taken steps to stop current flow from the
cable. It was also the stand of the
department before the District Magistrate
that the death had occurred on account of
the electrocution, however, it could not be
termed as fault of the department. In view
of there being specific pleadings, supported
by Annexure-5 and there being no specific
denial to the said pleadings coupled with
the stand taken by the department before
the District Magistrate, it can be safely
presumed
that
the
department
was
negligent in not checking unauthorized use
of electricity by extension of cables over
the area in question.

13. Considering the submissions
made at the bar, it is clear that the death
occurred on account of electrocution and
improper maintenance of the electricity
lines by the respondent Corporation which
fact has been admitted by the respondents
in the stand taken before the District
Magistrate, as such, the negligence of the
respondent Corporation stands established.

14. The next issue is to decide 'what
would be the just compensation'. Specific
pleadings in this regard in the form of the
petition before the District Magistrate with
regard to the age of the deceased, his
dependants
and
his
income
which
according to the petitioners was Rs.9,000/-
per month was made.

15. The Counsel for the respondents
places heavy reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of U.P. Power
Corporation Limited and others vs District
Magistrate/ Collection, Sultanpur and
others (supra) wherein this Court after
considering the mandate of Sections 3, 7
and 8 of the PLI Act came to the conclusion
that the petitioner while filing the claim
petition
under
the
Public
Liability
Insurance Act can be entitled to claim only
the compensation as specified in the
Schedule as referred to in Section 3 of the
PLI Act and claiming compensation of
higher amount, the PLI Act, 1991 can be of
no avail. It was further held that in the PLI
Act, there is no mechanism by which it can
be said that the principles for awarding
compensation in the case of Motor Vehicles
Acts can be applied for computing the
compensation under the PLI Act.

16. I have gone through the said
judgment and with respect, I differ with it
for the reason that from the plain reading
of the PLI Act, it is clear that the
compensation can be claimed under the
said Act under two provisions, firstly
under Section 3, which provides for grant
of compensation on the principles of 'No
fault' and confines to the quantum of
compensation to the extent indicated in
the Schedule as appended to the Act,
however, Section 6 of the Act provides
for compensation other than under 'No
fault'
and
empowers
the
grant
of
compensation as specified in Section 7 of
the PLI Act.
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In the judgment passed in the case
of U.P. Power Corporation Limited and
others vs District Magistrate/ Collection,
Sultanpur and others (supra), the mandate
of Section 6 was not brought to the notice
of the Court concerned and as such, the
judgment was passed under an impression
that the claim can be made and awarded
only under Section 3 which is qualified by
Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act whereas
Section 6 provides for an application other
than an application which is prescribed
under Section 3 of the PLI Act and in fact,
the plain reading of Section 7 makes it
clear that the same refers to the application
filed under Section 6(1) of the Act.

18. For perusal of Sections 3, 6, 7 and
8 of the PLI Act are quoted below:

"3. Liability to give relief in
certain cases on principle of no fault.--(1)
Where death or injury to any person (other
than a workman) or damage to any
property has resulted from an accident, the
owner shall be liable to give such relief as
is specified in the Schedule for such death,
injury or damage.

(2) In any claim for relief under
sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to in
this Act as claim for relief), the claimant
shall not be required to plead and establish
that the death, injury or damage in respect
of which the claim has been made was due
to any wrongful act, neglect or default of
any person.

Explanation.--For the purposes of
this section,--

(i) "workman" has the meaning
assigned
to
it
in
the
Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923);

(ii) "injury" includes permanent
total or permanent partial disability or
sickness resulting out of an accident.

6. Application for claim for
relief. (1) An application for claim for
relief may be made -

(a) by the person who has
sustained the injury;

(b) by the owner of the property
to which the damage has been caused;

(c) where death has resulted from
the accident, by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised
by such person or owner of such property
or all or any of the legal representatives of
the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal
representatives of the deceased have not
joined in any such application for relief, the
application shall be made on behalf of or for
the benefit of all the legal representatives of
the deceased and the legal representatives
who have not so joined shall be impleaded as
respondents to the application.

(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be made to the Collector
and shall be in such form, contain such
particulars and shall be accompanied by
such documents as may be prescribed.

(3) No application for relief shall
be entertained unless it is made within five
years of the occurrence of the accident.

7. Award of relief.--(1) On receipt
of an application under sub-section (1) of
section 6, the Collector shall, after giving
notice of the application to the owner and
after giving the parties an opportunity of
being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim
or, each of the claims, and may make an
award determining the amount of relief
which appears to him to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom
such amount of relief shall be paid.

(2) The Collector shall arrange to
deliver copies of the award to the parties
concerned expeditiously and in any case
5 All. Surendra Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
479
within a period of fifteen days from the date
of the award.

(3) When an award is made under
this section -

(a) the insurer, who is required to
pay any amount in terms of such award and
to the extent specified in sub-section (2B) of
section 4, shall, within a period of thirty
days of the date of announcement of the
award, deposit that amount in such manner
as the Collector may direct;

(b) the Collector shall arrange to
pay from the Relief Fund, in terms of such
award and in accordance with the scheme
under section 7A, to the person or persons
referred to in sub-section (1) such amount
as may be specified in that scheme;

(c) the owner shall, within such
period, deposit such amount in such
manner as the Collector may direct.]

(4) In holding any inquiry under
sub-section (1), the Collector may, subject
to any rules made in this behalf, follow
such summary procedure as he thinks fit.

(5) The Collector shall have all
the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose
of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing
the attendance of witnesses and of
compelling the discovery and production of
documents and material objects and for
such other purposes as may be prescribed;
and the Collector shall be deemed to be a
Civil Court for all the purposes of section
195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) Where the insurer or the
owner against whom the award is made
under sub-section (1) fails to deposit the
amount of such award within the period
specified under sub-section (3), such
amount shall be recoverable from the
owner, or as the case may be, the insurer as
arrears of land revenue or of public
demand.

(7) A claim for relief in respect of
death of, or injury to, any person or
damage to any property shall be disposed
of as expeditiously as possible and every
endeavour shall be made to dispose of such
claim within three months of the receipt of
the application for relief under sub-section
(1) of section 6.

(8) Where an owner is likely to
remove or dispose of his property with the
object of evading payment by him of any
amount of the award, the Collector may, in
accordance with the provisions of rules 1 to
4 of Order XXXIX of the First Schedule to
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), grant a temporary injunction to
restrain such act.]

8. Provisions as to other right to
claim compensation for death, etc.--(1)
The right to claim relief under sub-section
(1) of section 3 in respect of death of, or
injury to, any person or damage to any
property shall be in addition to any other
right to claim compensation in respect
thereof under any other law for the time
being in force.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), where in
respect of death of, or injury to, any person
or damage to any property, the owner,
liable to give claim for relief, is also liable
to pay compensation under any other law,
the amount of such compensation shall be
reduced by the amount of relief paid under
this Act."

19. For the reasons recorded above
and the fact that the application in the
present case was filed under Section 6 and
not under Section 3 of the PLI Act, I do not
see any reason to accept the contention of
the Counsel for the respondent based upon
the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
others
vs
District
Magistrate/
Collection, Sultanpur and others (supra).

20. Now coming to the quantum of
compensation that can be awarded by this
Court in the judgment passed in the case of
Bheem Sen (Supra) noticed that the
liability under a tort in respect of the public
undertaking would arise on establishing the
legal wrong/ tort. The Court also noticed
that for payment of tort compensation
besides the remedy of suit, as is available
under the common law, various statutes
have been enacted for payment of tortious
liability such a Motor Vehicles Act (for
claims arising out of motor vehicle
accidents), Employees Compensation Act
(for claiming compensation by employees),
PLI Act, Fatal Accidents Act, Consumer
Protection Act, to name a few and in the
case where liability is claimed against
public undertaking which is amenable to
writ jurisdiction, the power under Article
226 can be exercised for grant of just and
proper compensation. All the forums
provided in the above referred Acts
basically have been enacted for laying
procedures for expeditiously claiming a
tortious liability.

21. The Court also noticed the lines of
decision where the compensation was
granted in the cases of medical negligence
and custodial deaths in Nilabati Behera vs
State of Orissa; (1993) 2 SCC 746, State of
M.P. vs Shyamsunder Trivedi; (1995) 4
SCC 262, People's Union for Civil
Liberties vs Union of India; (1997) 3 SCC
433, and Kaushalya vs State of Punjab;
(1999) 6 SCC 754, Supreme Court Legal
Aid Committee vs State of Bihar; (1991) 3
SCC 482, Jacob George (Dr.) vs State of
Kerala; (1994) 3 SCC 430; Paschim
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity vs State of
West Bengal; (1996) 4 SCC 37 and Manju
Bhatia vs New Delhi Municipal Council;
(1997) 6 SCC 370.

22. Although it is true that the
principles for grant of compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act have not been made
specifically applicable to the grant of
compensation under the PLI Act, however,
the facts remain that under Section 6 of the
PLI Act, the Collector is bound to
determine and pay the compensation which
is a 'just compensation'. The concept of 'just
compensation' has been emphasized from
time to time by the courts holding that
courts/ tribunals are not only expected to
grant 'just compensation', it is the duty of
the court to grant 'just compensation'
especially when the claim arises out of the
socio-economic legislation.

23. In view thereof, I am of the
view that the manner of determining the
compensation as provided under the
Motor Vehicles Act can be taken as a cue
to determine and grant compensation in
the present case also. The principle of
quantum of compensation have been
explained in details taken in the context
of Motor Vehicles Act by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay
Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that for determining compensation, it is
required that the following parameters
be established, the age of the deceased,
the income of the deceased and the
number of the dependents. The Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
has
further
given
directions with regard to the claim of
compensation on both pecuniary and
non-pecuniary
heads
and
specific
directions in that regard are contained in
para 59 of the said judgment, which
reads as under:
5 All. Surendra Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
481

"59. In view of the aforesaid
analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:-

59.1. The two-Judge Bench in
Santosh Devi should have been well
advised to refer the matter to a larger
Bench as it was taking a different view than
what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a
judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same
strength cannot take a contrary view than
what has been held by another coordinate
Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh has not taken
note of the decision in Reshma Kumari,
which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding
precedent.

59.3.
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.

59.4. In case the deceased was
self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income
minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to
32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier
shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla
Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased
should be the basis for applying the
multiplier.

59.8.
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."

24. In the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi
Transport
Corporation
and
another;
(2009) 6 SCC 121 as followed in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), I proceed to
determine the compensation payable to the
petitioner on account of death of Amit
Kumar Pandey and Brijesh Pandey.

25. In the claim petition, it was
alleged by the claimants that Brijesh
Pandey was aged about 28 years and was
unmarried. The mother and the father were
dependants on the said Brijesh Pandey. It
was also alleged that he earned Rs.9000/-
(Rupees
nine
thousand
per
month),
although, there is no evidence with regard
to the earning on record.

26. From the perusal of the
documents
especially
the
postmortem
conducted on the body of the deceased
Brijesh Pandey, which is on record, the age
of the deceased has been shown to be 30
years and thus I accept the said age as the
age on which the deceased Brijesh Pandey
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
died. As no income proof has been
attached, I presume the minimum wages to
be earned by the deceased Brijesh Pandey
assessed as Rs.4500/- per month. The
deceased Brijesh Pandey is unmarried and
only the mother and the father were
dependent, an addition of 40% is to be
made in the income of the deceased in
terms of the judgment of the Pranay Sethi's
case (Supra) towards future prospects. At
the time of death, the age of the victim is
30 years, thus multiplier '17' is applied. The
deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50%
will be deducted towards personal expenses
in view of the judgnent of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas; 1994
(2) SCC 176. The dependents of Brijesh
Pandey are entitled for compensation as per
the calculation made hereinunder:

Sl.
No.
Head
Amount
1
Monthly Income
of the deceased
Rs.4500/- per month
2
Adding
40%
towards
future
prospect
Rs.4500+1800 = Rs.6300/-
3
Net
yearly
income
Rs.6300 x 12 = Rs.75600/-
4
Deducting 50%
Rs.75600 x 50% = Rs.37800/-
5
Applying
multiplier of '17'
at
the
age
between 26 to 30
as
per
Sarla
Verma's case
Rs.37800 x 17 = Rs.6,42,600/-
6
Amount under the
conventional
heads
[loss
of
estate Rs.16,500/-
,
loss
of
consortium
Rs.45,000/- (each
of
dependents);
Rs.45,000 x 2 =
Rs.90,000/-
and
funeral expenses
Rs.16,500/-)
as
Rs.16,500
+
Rs.90,000
+
Rs.16,500 =Rs.1,23,000/-
per Pranay Sethi
(Supra)]
7
Total amount of
compensation
payable
to
the
dependents of the
deceased
Rs.6,42,600+Rs.1,23,000
=
Rs.7,65,600/-

27. Thus, in Writ-C No.1002173 of
2015, the petitioners are entitled for
payment of compensation of Rs.7,65,600/-
along with interest @ 6% from the date of
accident i.e. 12.10.2011 up to actual
payment/ realization.

28. In the case of Amit Kumar
Pandey, the age as disclosed in the
postmortem report is 28 years. The income
although alleged to Rs.9000/- per month
has not been established by evidence, as
such, I presume the minimum wages to be
earned by the deceased was Rs.4500/- on
which enhancement of 40% is permissible
as future prospect. The petitioner is
survived by his wife, two minor children,
mother and father, hence, the deduction of
1/4th of his income is permissible in view
of law laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
At the time of death, the age of the victim
is 28 years, thus multiplier '17' is applied.
The dependents of Amit Kumar Pandey are
entitled for compensation as per the
calculation made hereinunder:

Sl.
No.
Head
Amount
1
Monthly
Income of the
deceased
Rs.4500/- per month
2
Adding
40%
towards future
prospect
Rs.4500+1800 = Rs.6300/-
3
Net
yearly
income
Rs.6300 x 12 = 75600/-
5 All. Deepak Sharma Vs. Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors.
483
4
Deducting
1/4th
towards
personal
expenses

Rs.75600 x 25% = Rs.18900/-
After deduction
Rs.75600-Rs.18900 = Rs.56700/-
5
Applying
multiplier
of
'17' at the age
between 26 to
30 as per Sarla
Verma's case

Rs.56700 x 17= Rs.9,63,900/-
6
Amount under
the
conventional
heads [loss of
estate
Rs.16,500/-,
loss
of
consortium
Rs.45,000/-
(each
of
dependents);
Rs.45,000 x 5 =
Rs.2,25,000/-
and
funeral
expenses
Rs.16,500/-) as
per
Pranay
Sethi (Supra)]

Rs.16,500
+
Rs.2,25,000
+
Rs.16,500 =Rs.2,58,000/-
7
Total amount of
compensation
payable to the
dependents
of
the deceased
Rs.9,63,900 + Rs.2,58,000/- =
Rs.12,21,900/-

29. Thus, in Writ-C No.1002174 of
2015, the petitioners are entitled for
payment of compensation of Rs.12,21,900/-
along with interest @ 6% from the date of
accident i.e. 12.10.2011 up to actual
payment/ realization.

30. For the reasons recorded above,
both the writ petitions are disposed off.
----------

(2022)05ILR A483
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2022

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

FAFO No. 143 of 2016

Deepak Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Shri Jitendra Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jagdish Prasad Tripathi, Sri A.D.
Saunders

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ankur Tandon

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Act, 1988 -
Claim - Obligation of vehicle at the inter
junction, where two road crossing each
other - Tribunal found the deceased sole
negligent and car driver not negligent -
Validity challenged - Held, the law is well
settled that at interception or inter
junction, it is the duty of the vehicle,
coming on the highway from intercepting
road to slow down the vehicle and to see
on all sides more particularly, his right and
left side to ensure whether any vehicle is
coming on the highway - High Court
overruled the finding of Tribunal and held
both drivers of the car and motorcycle,
were co-authors of the accident and have
contributed to the accident - High Court
re-computed the compensation by adding
15% future loss and applying multiplier of
9 and awarded 7.5% interest. (Para 12,
13, 20 and 21)

B. Motor Accident Claim - Rash and
negligent driving - Term 'Negligence' -
Meaning - Principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' ,
when it can be applied - Negligence
means failure to exercise care towards
others which a reasonable and prudent
person would in a circumstance or taking
action which such a reasonable person
would
not.
Negligence
can
be
both
intentional or accidental though it is
normally accidental - If the injury rather
death is caused by something owned or