# U.O.I v. Dinesh Kumar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 602
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No.278 of 2019
- **Bench:** J.J.Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-o-i-v-dinesh-kumar-anr-47481
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Railways Claims Tribunal
Act,1987-Section 23 & 123(c)(2) r/w
Section
124-A-Untoward
accidentcompensation-entitlement-Affidavit
filed
by
claimants/Parents-claimants
shows
that deceased was travelling in train with
ticket and died due to untoward incident
of falling down from running train-Burden
of proof whether deceased was bonafide
passenger was on Railways-Testimony of
AW-1 & aW-2 that unknown person was
runover by the train-Claimants relied for
documentary evidence upon copies of the
Station Superintendent's memo, inquest
report issued by Pradhan, police report
and ration card-But the appellants relied
on the Statutory Investigation Report
carrying
the
DRM's
report
-Such
contradictory testimony cannot be relied
on-No evidence on record that deceased
was crossing the railway track and was
runover by train-Claimants entitled for
compensation-tribunal directed payment
of Rs. 8 lacs with interest at the rate of
9% per annum reckoned from the date of
judgment until realisation within a period
of ninety days-modification of judgement
allowed to the extent that on the sum of
compensation ordered to be paid by the
Tribunal, interest shall be payable at the
rate of 9% per annum after expiry of a
period of ninety days from the date of
judgment passed by the Tribunal till
realizaiton, in the event the appellants
fails to pay the aforesaid amount.(Paras 1
to 25)

The appeal is allowed partly. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. Let the lower court records be
returned to the District Judge, Faizabad,
forthwith.
----------
(2022)01ILR A602
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2021 &
21.01.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No.278 of 2019

U.O.I. ...Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Prashant Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, Kavita Devi
Verma, Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava

A. Civil Law -Railways Claims Tribunal
Act,1987-Section 23 & 123(c)(2) r/w
Section
124-A-Untoward
accidentcompensation-entitlement-Affidavit
filed
by
claimants/Parents-claimants
shows
that deceased was travelling in train with
ticket and died due to untoward incident
of falling down from running train-Burden
of proof whether deceased was bonafide
passenger was on Railways-Testimony of
AW-1 & aW-2 that unknown person was
runover by the train-Claimants relied for
documentary evidence upon copies of the
Station Superintendent's memo, inquest
report issued by Pradhan, police report
and ration card-But the appellants relied
on the Statutory Investigation Report
carrying
the
DRM's
report
-Such
contradictory testimony cannot be relied
on-No evidence on record that deceased
was crossing the railway track and was
runover by train-Claimants entitled for
compensation-tribunal directed payment
of Rs. 8 lacs with interest at the rate of
9% per annum reckoned from the date of
judgment until realisation within a period
of ninety days-modification of judgement
allowed to the extent that on the sum of
compensation ordered to be paid by the
Tribunal, interest shall be payable at the
rate of 9% per annum after expiry of a
period of ninety days from the date of
judgment passed by the Tribunal till
realizaiton, in the event the appellants
fails to pay the aforesaid amount.(Paras 1
to 25)

The appeal is allowed partly. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572

2. U.O.I. thru G.M., Northern Railway Vs Smt.
Gayatri Devi, FAFO No. 166 of 2018

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

The Union of India has appealed under
Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal
Act, 19871 from a judgment of the
Tribunal
dated
15.03.2019,
awarding
compensation to the dependents of the
victim of a railway accident.

2. The claimant-respondents Dinesh
Kumar and Smt. Prem Lata instituted a
claim under Section 16 of the Act against
the Union of India, represented by the
General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad seeking compensation for the
death of their son, Laxmikant in a railway
accident on 25.02.2012. It is the claimantrespondents' case that the deceased was
travelling from Satna to Varanasi on
25.02.2012 on board the Tapti Ganga
Express. As the train was moving between
the Meja Road and Unchadih Railway
Stations, the deceased accidentally fell off
the train, sustaining grievous injuries. He
succumbed to those injuries. It is the
claimants' case that the deceased was
1 All. U.O.I. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
603
travelling on a second class railway ticket
from Satna to Varanasi, that was lost from
his person, in the course of the accident.

3. The appellants contested the claim,
denying the fact that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger on board train on the
date of the incident or that he died in
consequence of an accidental fall from the
train while travelling as a bona fide
passenger. It was emphasized that no First
Information Report was lodged, reporting
the loss of belongings and the journey
ticket by the claimants. It was pleaded that
the deceased was, in fact, run over by the
train on the date of accident, where
fabricated facts have been pleaded to set up
a false claim. It was also pleaded by the
appellant that no police panchnama or
autopsy was put in by the claimants in the
absence of which, the claimants must be
held to have failed in discharging their
evidential burden. It was also pleaded that
the particulars of the incident set out in
Paragraph No. 6 of the claim petition, did
not attract the ingredients of Section
123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the
Act. The Tribunal framed the following
issues :

(i) Whether the deceased was a
bona fide passenger of the train in
question?

(ii) Whether the incident of death
of the deceased falls under the ambit of an
untoward
incident,
as
defined
under
Section 123C(2) read with Section 124-A
of the Railway Act, 1989?

(iii) Who are the dependents of
the deceased?

(iv) To what relief?

4. The claimants, in support of
their case, relied on the testimony of
Dinesh Kumar, who has been described by
the Tribunal as AW-1. He testified on
affidavit. Another witness was Srinath,
AW-2. He too testified on affidavit. Srinath
was produced in Court and cross-examined.
The
claimant-respondents
relied
for
documentary evidence upon copies of the
Station Superintendent's memo, inquest
report issued by the pradhan, the police
report and ration card. The appellants, in
support of their case, relied on the Statutory
Investigation Report carrying the DRM's
report.

5. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were dealt with
by the Tribunal together and it was held
that the deceased was a bona fide passenger
on board the train in question, and that his
death occurred on account of an accident
during course of the journey. It falls within
the ambit of "untoward incident" under
Section 123(c)(2) of the Act read with
Section 124-A. On the third issue, it was
held that the claimants were dependents of
the deceased, being his father and mother.
This finding was based on the certified
copy of the ration card. The claimantrespondents, while answering Issue No. 4,
were
held
entitled
to
receive
in
compensation from the appellant a sum of
Rs. 8 lacs.

6. In consequence of the findings on
the four issues, the petition was allowed,
ordering the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 8
lacs in compensation to the claimantrespondents. It was further ordered that the
aforesaid sum of compensation be paid to
the claimants within a period of nintey days
of the date of receipt of a certified copy of
the judgment, with interest at the rate of 9%
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
per annum from the date of judgment till
realisation. There were ancillary directions
issued about part disbursement of the
awarded compensation, but that is not
much material for the purpose of this
appeal.

7. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant
and
Mr.
Manish
Kumar
Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for
the claimant-respondents.

8. It was argued with much emphasis
by Mr. Prashant Kumar Srivastava that the
entire accident was a ploy to extort
compensation from the appellant, whereas
the deceased was not at all a bona fide
passenger on board train. It is emphasized
that the deceased was a native of Village
Soraon, Post Office Meja Road, Police
Station Meja, Prayagraj and was allegedly
proceeding to Varanasi, when he fell off
the train in the vicinity of his village. It is
urged that the facts show that he was not at
all a bona fide passenger, but a wanderer on
the tracks, who was crushed under the
wheels of the train. It is argued that the
entire evidence does not suggest it to be an
"untoward incident" covered under Section
123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the
Act. It is emphasized by learned Counsel
for the appellant that AW-1 Dinesh Kumar
has said in his affidavit that neither the
deceased purchased the railway ticket in his
presence nor was he travelling with him on
board train, when the deceased fell off on
the date of accident. It is urged by learned
Counsel for the appellant that the evidence
of AW-1 is, therefore, of no worth. So far
as AW-2 Srinath is concerned, it is argued
that he has testified that the deceased
purchased the railway ticket on 25.02.2012
in his presence, but the claimants have not
produced any platform ticket or other
evidence to show the truth of this witness's
statement. It is argued that this witness has
not said that he has seen the accident. There
are fine contradictions pointed out by
learned Counsel for the appellant to
indicate unreliability of AW-2.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Manish
Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the
claimant-respondents, has argued that there
is convincing evidence to show that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger on
board the train in question and met with an
accident while travelling as such. He
submits that because the accident occurred
close-by the deceased's native village, is no
reason to disbelieve the otherwise cogent
and convincing evidence that establish both
the status of the deceased as a bona fide
passenger on board train as well as the
factum of his death in an untoward
incident, while journeying on the train. He
has invited the attention of the Court to the
evidence
of
the
witnesses
and
the
documentary evidence, to which allusion
would be made a little later.

10.

This
Court
has
carefully
considered the submissions made by the
learned Counsel appearing on both sides
and perused the record. So far as the issue
about the deceased being a bona fide
passenger on board the train in question is
concerned, there is a clear statement in the
affidavit
of
AW-2
Srinath,
that
on
25.02.2012, the deceased, in the presence
of the witness, purchased a railway ticket at
Satna Railway Station, booking his passage
to Varanasi. It is clearly said in the affidavit
that after purchasing the railway ticket, the
deceased boarded the Tapti Ganga Express
at Satna for destination Varanasi. In the
cross-examination,
the
credit
of
this
witness has been sought to be shaken, with
words elicited to the effect that he had
1 All. U.O.I. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
605
come to testify because he was a native of
the same village as the deceased, and that
the deceased's aunt was the Village
Pradhan. There are some other words also
elicited from the witness in his crossexamination, which show that he came to
know of the incident after the deceased had
been cremated. He has also said that the
facts detailed in the affidavit had not been
shared by him with anyone earlier. It is also
noticed that under the grill of crossexamination, the witness has said that the
place of incident is a kilometer away from
the site, where it is shown.

11. It is on the edifice of these
seemingly shaky utterances of the witness
that the learned Counsel for the appellant
much depends to impeach his credit. For
one, the utterances of the witnesses during
the cross-examination, in their nature, are
not
wholesome,
from
which
any
conclusion, either way, can be drawn. The
reason is that the words in the crossexamination are inextricably connected to
the questions, in reply to which, those
words have been said. Bereft of the
question, the answers do not make much
sense either way.

12. The other aspect of the matter is
that AW-1 is not a witness of the incident.
He is a witness of the factum of purchase of
the railway ticket by the deceased at Satna.
There is hardly anything elicited from this
witness,
discrediting
his
categorical
assertion in the affidavit, that the deceased
purchased the railway ticket in the presence
of this witness at Satna for destination
Varanasi. Rather, in answer to a general
question, impeaching him as an untrustful
witness, AW-2 has clearly said that it is
incorrect to say that he had come forward
to testify falsely. Therefore, this Court
is in agreement with the Tribunal, that the
testimony of AW-2 Srinath to the effect
that the deceased had boarded the train at
Satna, after purchasing a ticket to Varanasi,
remains unshaken. The Tribunal has rightly
believed the evidence about the deceased
being a bona fide passenger on board the
train in question.

13. At this stage, reference may be
made to the law in Union of India v. Rina
Devi2. In Rina Devi (supra) the law
relating to burden of proof regarding the
victim being a bona fide passenger was laid
down by the Supreme Court thus :

29. We thus hold that mere
presence of a body on the railway premises
will not be conclusive to hold that injured
or deceased was a bona fide passenger for
which claim for compensation could be
maintained. However, mere absence of
ticket with such injured or deceased will
not negative the claim that he was a bona
fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the
claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit of the relevant facts and
burden will then shift on the Railways
and the issue can be decided on the facts
shown or the attending circumstances.
This will have to be dealt with from case
to case on the basis of facts found. The
legal position in this regard will stand
explained accordingly.
 (Emphasis by Court)

14. It would, thus, appear that once it
is asserted on affidavit by the claimant that
the deceased was travelling on a valid
ticket, the burden would shift on the
Railways, and the issue has to be decided
on the basis of attending circumstances.
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The facts here show that the railway ticket
sanctifying the deceased's journey was not
recovered from his person.

15. No other evidence has been led by
the Railways to show that the deceased was
not a bona fide passenger. This Court
cannot ignore the fact that there is a solitary
witness, that is to say, AW-2 Srinath, about
the factum of purchase of the railway ticket
by the deceased at Satna, but in the crossexamination, no question has been put to
from him about that fact, which he has
categorically
testified
to
in
his
examination-in-chief on affidavit. Once this
witness has not been confronted about the
assertion in his affidavit that the deceased
had purchased a railway journey ticket
from Satna to Varanasi, it must be held that
his assertion in the affidavit/examinationin-chief goes unchallenged. The mere fact
that there was no recovery of the railway
ticket would not lead to the conclusion that
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger,
as held in Rina Devi (supra).

16. This Court, therefore, records its
agreement with the Tribunal on the point
that the deceased was indeed a bona fide
passenger on board the train in question on
the fateful day.

17. About the other issue, whether the
victim fell off the train and sustained such
injuries, that led to his death, entitling the
claimants to recover, the testimony of AW-1
Dinesh Kumar is not of much relevance. He
is not an eye-witness of the accident and was
also not a co-passenger with the deceased. No
inference, therefore, about the accident, can
be drawn on the basis of testimony of AW-1.
What cannot be ignored, however, is the
certificate of the Station Superintendent,
Meja Road, dated 10.02.2013, which this
Court has perused. It reads :

प्रमादणत दकर्ा जाता है दक लक्ष्मी
कान्त शुक्ल पुत्र ददनेश कुमार शुक्ल की मृत्यु
ददनाांक 28/02/2012 को रेल दुघयटना में गा़िी नां0
डाउन ताप्ती गांगा एक्सप्रेस से रेल र्ात्रा के दौरान
मेजा रोड रेल स्टेशन के पास सुबह 8 बजे टरेन से
दगरने से हो गर्ी थी। KM No. DN 785/26 से
785/24 के बीच मेजा रोड से आर०आर० के बीच
डाउन एडवाांस दसगनल के बाहर गाडय ताप्ती गांगा
एक्सप्रेस ने बतार्ा। S.O. मेजा को िी मेमो िेजा
गर्ा था।

18. In the opinion of this Court, this
certificate is enough to establish the accident,
which occurred during the course of a
journey on board the train in question, where
the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The
report of the DRM dated 17.04.2015 about
the accident is absolutely conjectural. It reads
:

.........मृतक दकसी थ्रू गा़िी अथायत
मेजा स्टेशन पर दबना स्टापेज वाली गा़िी पर
बैठकर र्ात्रा कर रहा होगा तथा स्वर्ां की
लापरवाही से चलता गा़िी से उतरने का प्रर्ास
दकर्ा होगा दजससे दगरकर मृत्यु हो गई। घटना में
मृतक स्वर्ां दजम्मेदार है। रेलवे की कोई
दजम्मेदारी पररलदक्षत नहीां होती है। र्दद मृतक
दनधायररत थथान पर बैठकर र्ात्रा करता तो उक्त
घटना घदटत नहीां होती।

19. There is absolutely no evidence to
infer that the deceased tried to deboard the
running train at Meja Road. Rather, the
unchallenged testimony of AW-2, that the
deceased had purchased a ticket from Satna
to Varanasi, would go to show that he did
not intend to detrain at Meja Road. If the
appellant wished to prove the case that the
deceased met with the accident while
deboarding the train at Meja Road that was
running through, it was the appellant's
burden to establish it by suitable evidence,
1 All. U.O.I. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
607
say, an eye-witness account, about the
incident. To the contrary, the memo of the
Station Superintendent, Meja Road dated
10.02.2013 extracted hereinabove, does not
suggest, in the least, that the deceased was
attempting to deboard the train, while it
was
running
through.
The
Station
Superintendent, who is an officer of the
Railway
Establishment,
with
much
experience and training, would have
certainly mentioned in his memo the
deceased's indiscretion of the kind that the
DRM's report conjectures. The Station
Superintendent would know well the
consequences of not recording the fact
about
the
deceased's
indiscretion
in
attempting to deboard a running train. The
tenor of the memo dated 10.02.2013 shows
that the deceased fell off the train during
movement,
from
which,
the
only
reasonable inference is that it was a case of
an accidental fall during the journey; not
the result of a misadventure to deboard a
train running through. Thus, in the opinion
of the Court, the findings of the Tribunal on
Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are unassailable, though
for added reasons.

20. The other point that has been
argued by Mr. Prashant Kumar Srivastava
is that the accident occurred on 25.02.2012,
whereas
the
prescribed
amount
of
compensation in the schedule to the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 19903 has been
amended
w.e.f.
01.01.2017
by
a
notification dated 22.12.2016. It is urged
that the Tribunal, therefore, erred in
awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 8
lacs, which is the prescribed compensation
under the amended schedule to the Rules of
1990. He submits that compensation in the
higher sum can be awarded with regard to
post-amendment accidents, and not for preamendment
accidents.
Here,
the
compensation has to be awarded, going by
the unamended rules, which cannot be
more than a figure of Rs. 4 lacs of
substantive compensation. Mr. Prashant
Kumar Srivastava's submissions on this
score have been opposed by Mr. Manish
Kumar Srivastava, who says that even in
case
of
pre-amendment
accidents,
compensation in the sum of Rs. 8 lacs has
to be awarded, where the decision is
rendered on a date after the coming into
force of the amendment.

21. The law laid down in Rina Devi
(supra) propounds a rule that in case of preamendment
accidents,
the
substantive
compensation would be that which obtains
on the date of accident. It would be Rs. 4
lacs. However, where the award is made
after coming into force of the amendment,
the entitlement to compensation is to be
worked out in the manner for a preamendment accident, that Rs. 4 lacs would
be substantive compensation and such
interest accrued thereon is to be added, as
considered reasonable from time to time. If
the resultant figure is higher than the
compensation payable on the date of award,
that is the sum payable; the higher of the
two sums of money is to be awarded. In
this regard, in Rina Devi, it has been held :

19. Accordingly, we conclude
that compensation will be payable as
applicable on the date of the accident with
interest as may be considered reasonable
from time to time on the same pattern as in
accident claim cases. If the amount so
calculated
is
less
than
the
amount
prescribed as on the date of the award of
the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled
to higher of the two amounts. This order
will not affect the awards which have
already become final and where limitation
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for challenging such awards has expired,
this order will not by itself be a ground for
condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in
Rathi Menon [Rathi Menon v. Union of
India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan
Sahoo [Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. SouthEast Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387
: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands
explained accordingly. The four-Judge
Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh
Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas
Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC
(L&S) 52] holds the field on the subject
and squarely applies to the present
situation. Compensation as applicable on
the date of the accident has to be given with
reasonable interest and to give effect to the
mandate
of
beneficial
legislation,
if
compensation as provided on the date of
award of the Tribunal is higher than
unrevised amount with interest, the higher
of the two amounts has to be given.

22. In the aforesaid perspective of the
law, the impugned award being one made
on 15.03.2019, that is post-amendment, the
compensation in the sum of Rs. 8 lacs
cannot be disputed by the appellants.
Though, it must be remarked that the
Tribunal has not shown a comparison of the
two
compensations
post
and
preamendment, but in either case, it would not
lead to a different result for the appellant.
The compensation cannot be less than Rs. 8
lacs.

23. Now, there is a further question
that has been agitated by learned Counsel
for the appellant, and that is about
reckoning of interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of award till
realisation. He submits that going by the
principal in Rina Devi, nothing beyond Rs.
8 lacs is payable. No doubt the Tribunal has
directed payment of interest at the rate of
9% per annum on the compensation
awarded, reckoned from the date of
judgment
until
realisation,
without
providing for a waiting period after expiry
whereof and persistent default by the
appellant, interest would be payable over
and above the sum of Rs. 8 lacs. The
principle in Rina Devi is not to be
understood in the manner that the appellant
can
pay
the
awarded
compensation
whenever they like and yet not be liable to
pay interest. The question whether over and
above the sum of Rs. 8 lacs, interest can be
granted, and if payable, what would be the
date from which it would be reckoned, was
considered by a Division Bench of this
Court in Union of India through General
Manager, Northern Railway v. Smt.
Gayatri Devi4. In Gayatri Devi (supra), it
was held:

In Rina Devi's case [supra] while
dealing
with
grant
of
interest
on
compensation amount (issue no.4), the
Apex Court held that interest can be
awarded from the date of accident itself
when the liability of the Railway arises
upto the date of payment without any
difference in the stages. The relevant
paragraph reads as under:-

"As already observed, though this
Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra)
held that rate of interest has to be at the rate
of 6% from the date of application till the
date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9%
rate of interest was awarded from the date
of application in Mohamadi (supra), rate of
interest has to be reasonable rate at par with
accident claim cases. We are of the view
that in absence of any specific statutory
provision, interest can be awarded from the
date of accident itself when the liability of
the Railways arises upto the date of
1 All. U.O.I. Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
609
payment, without any difference in the
stages. Legal position in this regard is at
par with the cases of accident claims under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting
views stand resolved in this manner."

As far as the case at hand is
concerned, in view of the proposition of
law as propounded in Rina Devi's [supra] it
is necessary to calculate the total amount
i.e. amount of compensation plus interest to
ascertain whether the amount so calculated
is less than the amount prescribed as on the
date of the award. In the event the amount
of compensation with interest was less than
the amount prescribed on the date of award,
then the amount which is higher is to be
paid to the claimants.

For the reasons aforesaid, we are
of the view that the ends of justice will be
secured by awarding Rs. Eight lac in all as
compensation to the claimants. It may be
added that provisions for compensating
monetarily either under the Railways
Act or Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
piece of legislation and the purpose for
award of interest is to put pressure on
the relevant person not to delay in
making the payment. In other words,
when any amount is due to a creditor
and the same is not paid by the debtor
over a certain period, the creditor is
deprived of the use of the said amount
for the period during which the amount
remains unpaid for which he is entitled
to be compensated by way of payment of
interest. Therefore, in the event the
appellants fails to pay the aforesaid
amount of Rs. Eight lacs within a period
of 90 days, then interest @ 9% shall be
payable till the date of actual payment.

(Emphasis by Court)

24. In view of the principle laid
down in Gayatri Devi, the direction to pay
interest on the compensation awarded
ought to be modified by ordering interest to
be payable at the rate of 9% per annum post
expiry of a period of ninety days from the
date of judgment till realisation.

25. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and stands allowed in part. The impugned
judgment is modified to the extent that on
the sum of compensation ordered to be paid
by the Tribunal, interest shall be payable at
the rate of 9% per annum after expiry of a
period of ninety days from the date of
judgment passed by the Tribunal till
realization, if within the aforesaid period of
time, the awarded compensation is not paid
to the claimant or deposited with the
Tribunal.

26. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Order on Misc. Application No. 5 of
2022)

The Court is convened via video
conferencing.

This is an application, seeking to
correct
the date
mentioned on
the
judgment and order passed in the present
appeal, by substituting the date "December
the 14th, 2021" with "November the 25th,
2021".

A perusal of the record, particularly,
the Case Status Report from the Bench
Secretary's records, shows that judgment in
this case was passed on 25.11.2021, but, by
typographical error, the date on the
judgment is shown as December the 14th,
2021.
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The application is allowed.

In my judgment and order passed in
this First Appeal from Order, at the foot of
the judgment, for the date "December the
14th, 2021", the date "November the
25th, 2021" shall be read.

The order passed in this appeal stands
corrected accordingly.

In any report of this judgment, the date
"November the 25th, 2021" shall be shown
as the date of decision and not the
December, the 14th, 2021.
----------
(2022)01ILR A610
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2020

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1012 of 2015

Qutubudin Ansari ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Shiromani Yadav & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ankur Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, Sri Radhey
Shyam

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 23 years old
and was doing private job earning a sum
of
Rs.
14,360/-per
month-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,880/- together
with interest @ 6% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-the deceased was survived by
five dependents- deceased was below the
age of 40 years, the deemed gross income
would
be
Rs
21,540/-per
month-By
applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss
of dependency is assessed Rs.21,97,080Thus, the claimants entitled for increase of
compensation a sum of Rs. 22,67,080/-
from
Rs.
4,80,880/-
@
6%
per
annum.(Paras 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Ins. Com. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) LawSuit SC 1093

2. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs D.T.C. & anr.
(2009) 2 T.A.C. 677 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the
respondent
nos.
1,
2
and
performa/respondent nos. 1 to 5.

3. This appeal has been filed by the
claimant-appellant for enhancement of the
compensation awarded to him by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge,
Chandauli vide judgment and award dated
12.12.2012 passed by him in M.A.C.P. No.
7 of 2010 (Qutubudin and Others Vs. Ram
Shiromani Yadav and Others) for the death
of Akhlak Ansari, son of claimantappellant, who was aged about 23 years at
the time of the accident which had taken
place on 21.11.2009 caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of Truck
No. U.P. 32 CN 6892, owner whereof was
respondent no. 1, Ram Shiromani Yadav by