# Tahsin /Claimant v. Yogesh Kumar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-06
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tahsin-claimant-v-yogesh-kumar-anr-44639
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 167 - Claimant cannot be nonsuited if his earlier claim filed under the
Workman Compensation Act, 1923 had
been
dismissed
as
not-maintainable
when as a fact the claimant was injured
and he died due to use of a motor
vehicle. (Para 11)

There is no bar for a claimant to file an
application under Section 163-A of the Act,
1988, if the earlier claim petition filed under
the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 was
dismissed upon a finding that the claimant
was not an employee or a workman of the
owner of the motor vehicle involved in the
accident. Even if he had the status of an
employee, he would have had an option to
either file a claim petition under the Motor
Vehicle Act or the Workman Compensation
Act, but not both, for the same amount.
However, if the amount is awarded under the
Workman Compensation Act, 1923 was less, a
claim petition for remaining amount would
remain maintainable under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. (Para 12)

Petition under Section 163-A, of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Even if it is held that he
deceased was a third party and not a labourer
then also his claim petition ought to have
been allowed. There cannot be bar under
Section 167 even if it is held that he was not
an employee on the truck, the involvement of
two vehicles will give a rise to claim under
section 163 A of the Act, 1988. (Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section
163-A - Negligence is not required to be
decided in a claim petition preferred
under section 163-A. (Para 15)

First Appeal partly allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1.Raja & anr Vs Ajay & anr 2007 (2) ACCD
1008 (MP).

## Text

3 All. Tahsin Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Anr.
1153
sentence, as has been awarded by the trial
Court.

67. Let a copy of this order along
with the lower court record be sent to the
trial Court concerned for its immediate
compliance forthwith.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1153

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2019

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

F.A.F.O. No.- 2723 of 2006

Tahsin ...Appellant/Claimant
Versus
Yogesh Kumar & Anr.
 ...Respondents/defendants.

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anju Shukla, Sri Nigamendra Shukla.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.N. Singh, Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Sri
V.C. Dixit, Sri Vipin Chandra Dixit, Sri J.N.
Nigam.

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 167 - Claimant cannot be nonsuited if his earlier claim filed under the
Workman Compensation Act, 1923 had
been
dismissed
as
not-maintainable
when as a fact the claimant was injured
and he died due to use of a motor
vehicle. (Para 11)

There is no bar for a claimant to file an
application under Section 163-A of the Act,
1988, if the earlier claim petition filed under
the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 was
dismissed upon a finding that the claimant
was not an employee or a workman of the
owner of the motor vehicle involved in the
accident. Even if he had the status of an
employee, he would have had an option to
either file a claim petition under the Motor
Vehicle Act or the Workman Compensation
Act, but not both, for the same amount.
However, if the amount is awarded under the
Workman Compensation Act, 1923 was less, a
claim petition for remaining amount would
remain maintainable under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. (Para 12)

Petition under Section 163-A, of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Even if it is held that he
deceased was a third party and not a labourer
then also his claim petition ought to have
been allowed. There cannot be bar under
Section 167 even if it is held that he was not
an employee on the truck, the involvement of
two vehicles will give a rise to claim under
section 163 A of the Act, 1988. (Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section
163-A - Negligence is not required to be
decided in a claim petition preferred
under section 163-A. (Para 15)

First Appeal partly allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1.Raja & anr Vs Ajay & anr 2007 (2) ACCD
1008 (MP).

2. Deepal Girishbhai Soni & ors Vs United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385.

3. United India Insurance Company Vs Sunil
Kumar 2018 ACJ 1.
4.Shivaji Vs Divisional Manager 2018 AIR SC
3705.

5. Smt. Bitti & ors. Vs Abdul Farooq @ Kallu &
ors. (F.A.F.O. No. - 3189 of 2003).

6. Bithika Mazumdar Vs Sagar Pal (2017) 2
SCC 748.

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

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the New
India Insurance Company and Sri Sunil
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 06.07.2006 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.4, Meerut
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C. No. 902 of 2004.

3. The brief facts of the ligation are accident
took place between truck bearing No. HR38D2694 and bus bearing No. U.P. 15 E9712. The
claimants are the parents of the deceased who
claimed to be a labourer on the said truck. The
accident is not in dispute. The truck being insured
by the insurance company is not in dispute, the
insurance company and nor the U.P.S.R.T.C.
have disputed the accident having taken place
even before this court. The claimants who are the
parents of the deceased had first filed the claim
before the Workmen Commissioner on the stand
taken by the owner that they had not engaged
Taufik as a workmen, the said claim petition was
dismissed. Instead of challenging the said order
the claimants preferred claim petition before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Unfortunately,
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also
dismissed the claim petition filed under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 holding that
the claim petition was barred by section 167 of
the Motor Vehicles 1988 (hereinafter, referred as
the "Act, 1988"). The Claims Tribunal came to
the conclusion that though the vehicles were
involved in the accident but as the Workmen
Commissioner was first approached the claim
petition was barred under Section 167 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

4. The accident policy, death of the
deceased, involvement of vehicles are not
in dispute. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal
non-suited
the
appellants
holding that the claim petition was barred
under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. It is this rejection which is
assailed by the claimants.

5. The Tribunal could not have
decided the issue of negligence as it was a
petition under Section 163 of the Act,
1988.

6. It is submitted that all issues are
wrongly decided by the Tribunal. it was a
petition under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicle
Act,
1988.
The
Workmen
Commissioner held that the deceased was
not a workman but it is nobodies case that
accident did not take place and the
claimant was injured and died due to use
of Motor vehicle Act.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
has relied on judgment in the case of
Raja and another Vs. Ajay and another
reported in 2007 (2) ACCD 1008 (MP) to
contend that as the claim under Workman
Compensation was dismissed as not
maintainable, the rejection petition under
section 167 of Motor Vehicle act is bad.

8. The grounds urged are that:-

"(a).
The
learned
Tribunal
grossly erred in law in dismissing the
claim
petition
because
the
correct
interpretation of Section 167 of the MV
Act is that simultaneous claims on the
ground of the applicability of Section 167
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and
workman compensation Act are not
maintainable.

(b). The correct interpretation
of Section 167 of MV Act is that
simultaneous claims cannot be laid both
under Workmen's Compensation Act and
3 All. Tahsin Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Anr.
1155
under Motor Vehicles Act. The language
of Section 167 is quite clear and
unambiguous and it cannot be consitite
that if any claim petition has been filed
under the Workmen's Compensation Act
and has been dismissed on any ground
not available under that Act, the claim
petition filed under the Motor Vehicles
Act on any ground available there under
is also liable to be dismissed on the
technicality without adverting to the
merits of the case but the learned tribunal
badly filed to appreciate this position of
law.

(c). The sine qua non of the
availability of relief under the Workmen's
Compensation
Act
is
the
employer
employee relations and it this relationship
is not established, any claim petition
under the said Act is liable to be
dismissed as in the instant case. But it
does not fallow there from on the
language of Section 167 of MV Act that
dismissal of the claim petition under the
Workmen's Compensation Act will render
the claimants remediless and they cannot
lay claim under the Motor Vehicles Act
when the claim is otherwise admissible
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned
tribunal badly failed in law to apply his
mind to the correct legal position.

(d). The insurance under the
Motor Vehicle act covers the third party
risks and if the third party becomes the
victim of an accident caused by a motor
vehicle, the insurer of the vehicle becomes
automatically
liable
and
it
cannot
escaped the liability on the ground that
the claim petition under the Workmen's
Compensation Act was dismissed.

(e) In view of the above, it is
clear that what is prohibited by Section
167 of the Motor Vehicles Act is the
simultaneous laying of the claim petition
under both the Acts. This is quite
reasonable and rational. The under lying
policy is that a person cannot claim two
remedies
simultaneously.
Naturally
therefore, when one remedy is refused,
there is no bar in claiming an other
remedy if it is available in terms of the
statute. The learned tribunal dismissed
the claim petition filed by the appellant
on a wrong premise and lost sight of the
correct legal position that what is
prohibited by Section 167, MV Act is
simultaneously laying of the claims under
the both statues.

(f). If section 167 is correctly
construed, it will be clear that the object
of prohibition there under is that a
claimant cannot be doubly benefited.
Clearly, therefore. there is no bar when
there is no chance of double benefits. It is
well settle that the law gives relief and
does
not
do
injustice.
Any
other
interpretation of Section 167, MV Act will
be nothing but to deny justice not
permitted by law."

9. Section 167 of The Motor Vehicle
Act reads as follows:-

"167. Option regarding claims
for compensation in certain cases.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Worker's Compensation Act, 1923 (8
of 1923), where the death of, or bodily
injured to, any person gives rise to a
claim for compensation under this Act
and
also
under
the
Worker's
Compensation Act, 1923, the person
entitled to compensation may without
prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X
claim such compensation under either of
those Acts but not under both."

Section 167 in The Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 gives option to the
claimants to seek compensation either
under workman Compensation Act, 1923
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. They
cannot file a claim petition under the
provision of both the Acts and the benefit
under both legislation.

There have been few cases
where
applicant
first
claimed
the
compensation under one act and then
tried to be compensated again under
another act for same mishap. Karnataka
High Court authority, and appealed for
compensation under Section 173(1) of
Motor Vehicle Act, and the Judge B.
Manohar, J. held that a claimant can only
seek
compensation
either
under
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 or
Motor Vehicle Act, they cannot claim
petition under both the provisions. The
claimant was found to have claimed his
compensation
under
Employees
Compensation act and was awarded the
compensation for the death of his family
in a road accident while he was
proceeding on a motorcycle. Then again
he was trying to claim compensation
under Section 163 A of the motor vehicle
act.

In Civil Appeal No.937 of 2013
(Insurance
Company
Limited
vs.
Dyamavva & Ors) decided on 5th
February, 2013. Here Yalgurdappa B.
Goudar died in a road accident after he
left for his home completing his office
work. The accident occurred when he was
riding on the pillion of a motor cycle and
was hit by a tripper. He was compensated
by his company an amount of INR
3,26,140/- under workman compensation
Act, 1923. Besides his claim under
workman
compensation
Act,
1923,
Dyamavva Yalgurdappa, also raised a
claim under section 166 of Motor vehicles
act 1988 in Bagalkot and was awarded a
compensation of INR 11,44,440/- But
however the Motor Accident Tribunal
ordered a deduction of compensation
amount paid by his employer from this
compensation amount stating that one
could not ask for compensation under
both the acts.

10. While interpreting the provision
of section 167 of the Act no doubt any
option is given to the claimant to file
petition under any of the Act, in our case
the Workman Commissioner rejected the
claim petition of the claimant parent and
it held that the deceased was not an
employee. The respondent no.1 did not
appear
before
the
Workman
Commissioner. The parent had the elected
the forum of W.C. but the W.C.
Commissioner rejected the same holding
that deceased Taufik was not proved to be
a helper and therefore the claim is not
maintainable before him. The employer
refused to accept that Taufik was not a
helper on his this statement the claim
petition was dismissed by the workman
Commissioner.

11. A question arises as to whether
for the death of a person where a motor
vehicle is involved can be non suited by
both the forum namely the Workman
Commissioner and the Motor Vehicle
tribunal established under Act, 1988. The
answer would be a no as if both the
remedies are barred. The principle of Ubi
jus ibi remedium will be frustrated as
from the facts it is clear that the accident
has taken place it is proved that the
deceased was in the truck. It has been
denied that it was not a driver. The driver
has not been stepped into witness box. his
dead body was found from the place of
accident and his claim petition was not
allowed by the Commissioner on the
ground that factum of employment was
denied by the owner . The Section 167 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
3 All. Tahsin Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Anr.
1157
interpreted time and again by the apex
court and the claim petition would not
have been dismissed . The claim before
the
workman
commissioner
was
incompetent and therefore it cannot be
said that the claimants had opted a forum.
In this case, even if, we go by the
principle of Section 167 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 the judgment in Raja
and another Vs. Ajay and another
reported in 2007 (2) ACCD 1008 (MP),
paragraphs 4 and 5 read as follows:-

"4. In the appeals in hand, it is clear,
that the claim of the workmen that he was
employee of respondent No.1 was not accepted
in view of the preliminary objection raised by
the employer to the effect that the claimants as
workmen of respondent no.1, had never been
engaged by the said respondent for any work,
whatsoever. However, in such a situation where
the person has been non-suited on the ground
that the basic foundation on which he had
proceeded was non-existent, we are of the view
that even after dismissal of their case on the
technical ground, they cannot be derived of the
remedy of approaching the Tribunal under the
Motor Vehicles Act against the torfeasor. under
these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that
the claimant has availed both the benefits
under the Workmen's Compensation Act and
also under the Motor vehicles Act. Had it been
a case where compensation was granted, the
other remedy would have been barred but in
this case the claim itself has been dismissed as
not maintainable and, therefore, the invoking of
the proceedings was without jurisdiction ab
initio. in this view of the matter we are of the
considered view that the appellants in the
present case can still approach the Tribunal
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5.
In
view
of
the
above
discussion, we allow these appeals to the
extent that notwithstanding the order
passed by the Workmen's Commissioner,
the appellants shall be free to approach
the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles
Act. With the above liberty to the
appellants, these appeals are disposed of
with costs. Counsel Fee Rs.500/- shall be
payable to the counsel for each of the
respondents."

12. And the latest judgment of the
Apex Court in this case even if very strict
view is taken, it cannot be said that the
claim petition was not maintainable
against the driver, owner and Insurance
Company of the vehicle involved in the
accident. In this case, it is an admitted
position of fact that two vehicles were
involved in the accident. Even if, it is held
that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 to be applicable. The claim
against the other owner and driver would
not
have
been
dismissed.
The
fundamental question and requirement the
use of motor vehicle irrespective of the
factum of employment and therefore
invoking the bar of Section 167 is
perverse. In light of the fact that it was a
case of torturous Act involving more than
one vehicle, the provisions of Section 167
of the Act would not have been made
applicable as no compensation was paid
under the Workmen Compensation Act,
1923. The Apex Court in 2004 ACJ 934
has held that there is no bar for claimant
to file an application under Section 163-A
of the Act, 1988, if no compensation was
granted where third party risk is involved
the claimant who has been held not to be
the employee or a workmen can file claim
under Motor vehicle Act AIR 2013 ACJ
709 Supreme Court has considered and
even amount is awarded under W.C. a
claim petition for remaining amount is
sustainable. In that view of the matter the
claim petition could not have been
dismissed by the Motor Vehicles Tribunal.
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal
is to do justice and both the legislations
are meant for doing justice and the cause
of action arose when the accident
occurred and that the deceased was held
not be a cleaner.

14. It is submitted by Sri V.C. Dixit,
learned counsel for the New India
Insurance Com. Ltd. that he was labour. If
this fact is accepted by the Insurance
Company the dismissal of the claim
petition by the Workmen Commissioner is
bad in eye of law and that if W.C. is
rejected,
the
claim
petition
was
maintainable before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. The reasons being two
vehicles were involved the deceased was
a non tort-fessor and that it was a claim
petition filed under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is clear
pleadings of the parties. The F.I.R. proved
the accident which has been accepted by
the tribunal. The accident also proved
before the tribunal. The ownership is
proved. The owner now before the
tribunal in paragraph 23 that he has not
received any compensation before W.C.
Commissioner and that the tribunal
should have granted compensation to the
claimants just by holding that he was a
labourer on a different vehicle general
truck. Having held that the claim petition
was maintainable after 19 year should this
court remand the matter to the tribunal or
as the record is before this court decide
the quantum in its jurisdiction under
Section 173 of the Act, 1988. The manner
in which a claim petition under Section
163-A of he Motor Vehicles Ac,t 1988 has
to be decided as per the ratio laid down in
the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and
others Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd, Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 and
therefore the claims tribunal could not
have even frame the issue of negligence it
is Section 163-A reads as follows:-

"163-A. Special provisions as
to
payment
of
compensation
on
structured formula basis:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in any other law
for the time being in force or instrument
having the force of law, the owner of the
motor vehicle or the authorised insurer
shall be liable to pay in the case of death
or permanent disablement due to accident
arising out of the use of motor vehicle,
compensation, as indicated in the Second
Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim,
as the case may be. Explanation.--For the
purposes of this sub-section, "permanent
disability" shall have the same meaning
and
extent
as
in
the
Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2)
In
any
claim
for
compensation under sub-section (1), the
claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or permanent
disablement in respect of which the claim
has been made was due to any wrongful
act or neglect or default of the owner of
the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of
any other person.

(3) The Central Government
may, keeping in view the cost of living by
notification in the Official Gazette, from
time to time amend the Second Schedule.
"

15. 2018 ACJ page 1 United India
Insurance Company Vs. Sunil Kumar
lays down the ratio that point of
negligence is not required to be decided
in a claim petition preferred under
section163-A. In Shivaji Vs. Divisional
Manager, 2018 AIR SC 3705 raising the
issue of negligence itself is inconsistent
with legislative object in introducing the
3 All. Tahsin Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Anr.
1159
provision for final compensation on
structure basis, hence, 163-A does not
contemplate deciding issue of negligence
hence the issue no. 1 and 4 raised by the
tribunal could not have been raised and
they were in fact wrongly raised. The
tribunal over looked the fact that it was an
application under Section 163-A and not
166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, hence framing
of issue no. 1 and 4 itself caused
illegality. Recently this court in F.A.F.O.
No. - 3189 of 2003 (Smt Bitti And
Others vs. Abdul Farooq @ Kallu And
Others) Paragraphs 15 and 16 reads as
follows:-

"15. It is submitted by the
counsel for the appellant that in view of
the judgment in the case of F.A.F.O.
No.534 of 1995 (Brahma Dutta Sharma
Vs. Umesh Sharma and Others) decided
on 30.01.2019 wherein para 14, it has
been held as follows:

"14. The finding of the Tribunal
are perverse. The tempo being a bigger
vehicle as no legal evidence has been
produced to show that the claimant had
contributed to the accident. Tribunal has
not given proper reasons for holding him
negligent
whether
he
had
taken
permission to come Jhansi or not is of no
relevance and it has not been brought on
record that because he has left place of
service, he was negligent. The conclusive
proof of against the tempo driver,
therefore, the tribunal committed manifest
error in holding the appellant first
contributory negligent and coupling with
no proper reply for leaving the head
quarter. There is no evidence about the
motorcycle being driven negligently by
the appellant at the time of accident. The
Respondent did not produce any such
evidence and there is a charge sheet
against the tempo driver which primafacie pointed towards the negligence of
the appellant. Thus the finding of
contributory
negligence
cannot
be
sustained. I am supported in my view in
Mangla Ram Versus Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, (2018) 5 SCC 656. "

16. Bithika Mazumdar Vs.
Sagar Pal (2017) 2 SCC 748 wherein it
has been held that compensation claim
petition which remained undecided for
nine years and the record was before the
Apex Court, the Apex Court decided the
quantum.

Similarly, this court feels that as
sixteen years have elapse from filing of
claim appeal and that the record is before
this court instead of directing the parties
to go before the tribunal only for the
assessment of compensation which could
cause further delay and will also cause
further loss to the destitute family. This
court in Brahma Dutta Sharma Vs.
Umesh Sharma and Others (supra) has
taken similar view and therefore I without
remanding the matter as the principles for
determination of compensation are well
settled
venture
to
decide
the
compensation here."

Hence I propose to decide the
matter on merit for compensation also.

16. It was a petition under Section
163-A even if it is held that he was a third
party and not a labourer then also his
claim petition ought to have been
allowed. There cannot be bar under
Section 167 even if it is held that he was
not an employee on the truck the
involvement of two vehicles will give a
rise to claim under section 163 A of the
Act, 1988.

17. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal
has not considered issue no.5 in his
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proper perspective holding that he could
avail of only one forum. This issue has
been wrongly decided. The findings are
quashed for thus the compensation
payable to the claimants who are the
parents of deceased who was 21 years of
age will have to be decided.

18. The income of the deceased in
the year 2000 can safely be considered to
be Rs.2000/- per year as he was a
labourer. 40 % of Rs.2000/- will have to
be added as per judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company vs. Pranay
Sethi and others. Counsel for the
appellant has relied on the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in First
Appeal From Order No. 2548 of 2013
(Ravi Shanker Tiwari and another Vs.
Praveen Kumar Jain and others)
decided on 2.2.2018. It is further
submitted that the interest also requires to
be awarded as per the provision of Act
and multiplier should be applied on the
basis of age of the deceased.

19. As against this, it is submitted
by learned counsel for the respondent that
the income which has not been proved
cannot be granted and amount has rightly
not been awarded by the Tribunal.

20. After hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the
judgment and order impugned, this Court
feels that the income of the deceased, in
the year of accident, should have been at
least
Rs.2,000/- per
month namely
Rs.24,000/- per year, to which as the
deceased was 21 years of age, 40% of the
income requires to be added as future
income
which
would
come
to
Rs.24,000+9,600=
33,600/-.
The
deduction
of
1/2
towards
personal
expenses of the deceased will have to be
made. Hence, after deduction of 1/2, the
annual datum figure available to the
family
would
be
Rs.16,800/-.
The
multiplier of 18 will have to be granted.
Rs.30,000/- for filial consortium to the
parents. Hence, the claimants are entitled
to a total compensation of Rs.16,800 x
18+ 30,000= 3,32,400/-.

21. However, the rate of interest
which is 6% would be 7.5% in view of
the latest decision of the Apex Court in
National
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
Vs.
Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2)
T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex
Court has held as under :

"13. The aforesaid features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the
same had been too high a rate in
comparison
to
what
is
ordinarily
envisaged in these matters. The High
Court,
after
making
a
substantial
enhancement in the award amount,
modified the interest component at a
reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that
allowed by High Court."

22. In this case the rate of interest
should be 7.5% from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the amount is
deposited by all the respondent jointly
and severely as it was proved that
vehicles was involved in the accident.

23. While going through the cover
note, it is covering the person in the truck.
The respondents have not examined
anybody despite that dismissing the same
on the ground that it is barred by under
3 All. Smt. Anita & Ors. Vs. Jai Pal Singh & Anr.
1161
Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act is
bad in eye of law.

24. The judgment is quashed. The
respondents shall indemnify jointly and
severely under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicle Act,1988. The appeal is
partly allowed.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1161

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

FAFO No. 2801 of 2007
connected with
FAFO Cases No. 2911 of 2007, 2912 of 2007 &
3007 of 2007

Smt. Anita & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jaipal Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Nigamendra Shukla, Anju Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Just and fair compensation
- Future prospects in cases of selfemployed persons - In case the deceased
was self-employed or on a fixed salary,
an addition of 40% of the established
income is warranted 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.
Held:
-
Tribunal
erred
in
granting
compensation
without
considering
the
question of future prospects of the selfemployed deceased. Court below ought to
have considered the question of future
prospects of the deceased while awarding the
"just compensation". (Para 18)

First Appeal partly allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1.National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680

2. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Development
Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121

3.
U.P.S.R.T.C.
vs.
Additional
District
Judge/Special Judge Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 9020 of 2007, decided on 01.03.2019

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

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
the
claimants/appellants in First Appeal From
Order No. 2801 or 2007, Sri K.S. Amist,
learned counsel for the respondents, Sri
K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the
claimants-appellants and Sri Nigamendra
Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents in the connected appeals.

2. All the present four appeals arises
out of the same accident and as such they
are being disposed off by means of
common judgement. The FAFO Nos.
2911 of 2007, 2912 of 2007 and 3007 of
2007 have been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the awards passed
by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in
three
claim
petitions
being
Claim
Petitions No. 02 of 2003, 03 of 2003 and
08 of 2003. The FAFO No. 2801 of 2007
has been filed by the claimants-appellants
seeking enhancement of the award passed
by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in