# The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Anarkali Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-08
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED First Appeal From Order No. 3226 of 2013
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-branch-manager-the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-v-smt-anarkali-devi-ors-45930
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Determination
of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
Funeral
expenses,
loss
of
consortium and loss of estate - The deceased
was permanently employed and his age was 54
years 10 months -While determining the
income, the amount of 15% of his actual salary
shall be added to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects - Reasonable figures
under 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
-
Tribunal's
award
modified. (Para 10, 11 and 14)

Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accident, cannot be accepted. Section 158
and 166(4) provide that particulars of
vehicles involved in the accident have to be
collected by investigating agency and
forwarded to the Tribunal as accident
information report in Form 54 which shall
be treated as claim application. Motor
Vehicles Act empowers the Tribunal to
award compensation to the claimant even
in absence of formal claim application. I
am supported my view by the recent
judgment of Gujarat High Court passed in
the
Case
of
Joshi
Rajendrakumar
Popatlal Vs. Thakor Ramnaji Hamirji
and others, reported in 2020 ACJ 365,
and therefore, it cannot be said that the
vehicle was not involved in the accident.
The further contention of the counsel for
the
appellant
that
the
compensation
awarded is on higher side also fails.

11. In this case the insurance
company
has
not
examined
any
investigating office and has not even raised
any objections before the tribunal that the
vehicle was not involved in the said
accident. In his further statement also, the
said contention has not been raised, rather
the written statement was to the effect that
the driver did not have proper driving
license. Further, while going through the
record, it is very clear that the insurance
company also accepted that the vehicle was
involved in the accident. No issue was
raised to the said effect.

12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

13. The record be sent back to the
Tribunal.
----------
(2020)09ILR A206
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2020
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED

First Appeal From Order No. 3226 of 2013
Connected with
First Appeal From Order No. 577 of 2019

The
Branch
Manager,
The
Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Anarkali Devi & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vivek Kumar Birla, Sri Arun Kumar
Shukla, Sri Pankaj Kumar Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Asthana, Sri Rakesh
Chandra Tiwari

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Determination
of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
Funeral
expenses,
loss
of
consortium and loss of estate - The deceased
was permanently employed and his age was 54
years 10 months -While determining the
income, the amount of 15% of his actual salary
shall be added to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects - Reasonable figures
under 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
-
Tribunal's
award
modified. (Para 10, 11 and 14)

Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corp. & anr., 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.)
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors. reported in 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093
(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J. &
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)
9 All. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Smt. Anarkali Devi & Ors. 207

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This F.A.F.O. No. 3226 of 2013 has
been preferred by The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Sonebhadra against the judgement and
award dated 19.08.2013 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District
Judge, Sonebhadra in M.A.C.P. No. 299 of
2010 (Smt. Anarkali Devi and others Vs.
Gulab Chandra Yadav and others) by which
a sum of Rs. 32,33,500/- has been awarded
as
compensation
to
the
claimantsrespondents for the death of one Hosila
Prasad Dubey, husband of claimantrespondent no. 1 and father of claimantrespondent nos. 2 to 4, caused on 9.10.2010
as a result of the injury received by him in
an accident which had taken place on
8.10.2010 due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of Indigo bearing registration
no. U.P. 64L/8596 while the deceased was
going on his motorcycle.

3. The F.A.F.O. No. 577 of 2019 has
been preferred by the claimant-appellants
for enhancement of compensation.

4. The only ground on which the
learned counsel for the appellant in
F.A.F.O. No. 3226 of 2013 has assailed the
impugned judgment and award is that
considering the age of the deceased at the
time of his death, the Tribunal ought to
have applied the multiplier of 11 in place of
13 as per the dictum laid down by the Apex
court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C.
677 (S.C.).

5. There is no dispute about the fact
that at the time of his death, the deceased
was aged about 54 years and 10 months
and he was employed in N.T.P.C. and
earning a sum of Rs. 30,828/- per month.

6. Paragraph 21 of Smt. Sarla Verma
(supra) which is relevant for our purpose
reads as hereunder :

"21. We therefore hold that the
multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts
with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the
age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years),
reduced by one unit for every five years,
that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31
to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14
for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50
years, then reduced by two units for every
five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years,
M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

7. Thus, in view of the above, the
multiplier which should have been applied
by the Tribunal for ascertaining the loss of
dependency, should have been 11 and not
13.

8. It has been contended by learned
counsel for the appellants in F.A.F.O. No.
577 of 2019 that the Tribunal while
computing the compensation, has failed to
award any amount towards future prospects
and the amount awarded under the
conventional heads is not in consonance
with the principle propounded by the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in 2017 LawSuit (SC)
1093.

9. The constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the
case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra)
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in sub-paragraph (iii) to (viii) of paragraph
61
has
ruled
inter-alia;
that
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; 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.

10. In the instant case, there is no
dispute about the fact that the deceased was
permanently employed and his age was 54
years 10 months as per the salary slip of the
deceased and hence the Tribunal ought to
have awarded 15% of actual income of the
deceased towards future prospects. We
therefore, hold that while determining the
income, the amount of 15% of his actual
salary shall be added to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects.

11. We find that the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral
expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of
estate. In sub-para (viii) of paragraph 61 of
the Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the
Apex Court has observed that reasonable
figures under 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.

12. We, accordingly, direct that the
claimant-appellants in F.A.F.O. No. 577 of
2019 shall be entitled to sums of Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
under the conventional heads namely
funeral expenses, loss of consortium and
loss of estate respectively.

13. We, accordingly, proceed to
recalculate the compensation in the light of
the aforesaid principles. As noted above, the
actual salary of the deceased was Rs. 30,828/-
per month or Rs. 3,69,936/- p.a. less tax. By
adding 15% towards future prospects as the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, the deemed gross income of the
deceased would be Rs. 30,828/- + 15% of Rs.
30,828/- = Rs. 35,452/- per month or Rs.
4,25,424/- p.a. After deducting 1/4th amount
(i.e. 35,452-8863) towards the living and
personal expenses of the deceased, his
contribution to the family is determined as
Rs. 26589/- per month or Rs. 3,19,068/- p.a.
By applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss
of dependency is assessed at Rs. 35,09,748/-.
We further award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- under
the head of loss of consortium and Rs.
15,000/-
towards
loss
of
estate.
We
accordingly
increase
the
compensation
awarded to the claimants-respondents by the
Tribunal from Rs. 32,33,500/- to Rs.
35,79,748/-. The claimants-respondents shall
further be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on
the increased amount of compensation from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the
actual payment is made.

14. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
9 All. Nand Lal Ram & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Meerut & Ors.
209

15. Both the appeals stand disposed of
accordingly.

16. The parties shall bear their own costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A209
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3573 of 2010

Nand Lal Ram & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Meerut & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anurag Sharma, Sri Shashank Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.K. Chatterjee, Sri S.D. Dube, Sri
Neeraj Dube, Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim -
Application of Multiplier - Sarla Verma's
principle - Age of deceased is 35 years - The
multiplier of 16 should have been applied -
Held, Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of
8. (Para 15)
B. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination
of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects - Pranay Sethi's principle applied -
Supreme Court has provided for 50% future
prospects for a person aged below 40 years -
Directed for the award of compensation include
50% towards future prospects of the income of
deceased. (Para 16 and 20)
C. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Determination of Compensation - Funeral
expenses and loss of estate - Pranay Sethi's
principle - 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 -
Directed for the award of compensation include
Rs. 15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss
of estate. (Para 18, 19 and 20)

Appeal allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Raghuvir Singh Vs Hari Singh 2009 (2) ACCD
1120 (SC)

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Indira
Srivastava 2008 ACJ 614 (SC)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
4. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr (2009) 6 SCC 121

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashank Shekhar,
learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. In view of the office report dated
05.02.2020 service of notice is deemed sufficient
upon the proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6.

3. Sri N.K. Chatterjee and Sri S.D.
Dube, learned counsels for the respondents
are not present.

4. This first appeal from order has
been
preferred
for
enhancement
of
compensation awarded under the award of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated
26.08.2010 passed in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 1006 of 2008.

5. The total compensation that has been
awarded is Rs. 18,71,146/- along with the