# U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Ram Beti and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 413
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-05-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 406 of 1991
- **Bench:** Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-road-transport-corporation-v-smt-ram-beti-and-others-40384
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 163-A,
Second
Schedule-Award
of
Compensation-Death of 12 years old
child in motor accident-Award of Rs. One
lac as compensation by Tribunal-AppealEven though award passed prior to
coming into force of Second Schedule, it
may be taken assistance of as a Safer
guidance-As per Second Schedule taking
annual income of deceased into account
and applying 15 as multiplier, award,
held not unreasonable.

Thus, in the case at hand I propose to
take assistance as a safer guidance for
arriving at the amount of compensation
payable to the respondents-parents of
the child. I have no hesitation in adopting
multiplier of 15 in making such award.
The deceased Ram Bharosey used to earn
Rs. 25/- per day and with this income his
annual income will come at Rs. 9,000/-. If
it is multiplied with 15 then the figure
comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-. There were
definite prospects of the child after
having grown up in the age to have
further earnings but that apart if his total
annual income is counted at Rs. 9,000/-
only, the multiplier of 15 would be a safer
figure for fixation of compensation. Out of
the aforesaid amount, the pecuniary
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
414
assistance rendered to the parents would
be to the extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd would
be his personal expenditure out of the
aforesaid total figure. In this manner, if
the personal expenditure of the deceased
is deducted from the said figure of Rs.
1,35,000/-, the pecuniary loss, which can
be safely said to have been incurred by
the respondents-parents comes to Rs.
90,000/-. Even though, the Tribunal
below
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.
1,00,000/-,
remaining
sum
of
Rs.
10,000/- for awarding compensation can
be treated to be the amount covering the
compensation for expenditure of funeral
etc. and the mental shock that the
respondents have suffered in the death of
their minor son. The award does not
appear to be exorbitant or unreasonable
and requires no interference in the
present appeal.

 Para 7
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) TAC 1 (SC)
AIR 2001 SC 3218
AIR 2001 SC 3660
1913 AC 1
2004 (1) TAC 3
(2001) 2 SCC 9

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V. Smt. Ram Beti and others
413
petitioner while discharging his original
assigned duty could never suo-moto was
expected to come forward and participate
in the activity of apprehending the
criminals and obstructing the tempos
taking away stolen coal bags. In any case,
the charges were vague, not specific.
Similar charges were against three other
constables, and they were allowed to go
Scott free in the revision by exonerating
them and the petitioner has only been
singled out, therefore, the petitioner could
not be held guilty of not rendering
assistance to the raiding party and
removal of petitioner from service is a
punishment
too
harse
and
disproportionate to the alleged charges
against him, and action and quantum of
punishing the petitioner is shockingly
disproportionate and on the reasons stated
above impugned orders dated 28.09.1999,
22.11.1999 and 29.06.2001 are not legally
sustainable, therefore, these are set aside.
The Senior Security Commissioner, RPF
(NR), Allahabad is directed to consider
the case of petitioner sympathetically and
may taken decision within six months of
awarding minor punishment other than
removal of petitioner from service, so
that, petitioner may be entitled to his post
retiral and other service benefits.

In view of the above observations,
writ petition is allowed.

No order as to cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 406 of 1991

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ram Beti and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 163-A,
Second
Schedule-Award
of
Compensation-Death of 12 years old
child in motor accident-Award of Rs. One
lac as compensation by Tribunal-AppealEven though award passed prior to
coming into force of Second Schedule, it
may be taken assistance of as a Safer
guidance-As per Second Schedule taking
annual income of deceased into account
and applying 15 as multiplier, award,
held not unreasonable.

Thus, in the case at hand I propose to
take assistance as a safer guidance for
arriving at the amount of compensation
payable to the respondents-parents of
the child. I have no hesitation in adopting
multiplier of 15 in making such award.
The deceased Ram Bharosey used to earn
Rs. 25/- per day and with this income his
annual income will come at Rs. 9,000/-. If
it is multiplied with 15 then the figure
comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-. There were
definite prospects of the child after
having grown up in the age to have
further earnings but that apart if his total
annual income is counted at Rs. 9,000/-
only, the multiplier of 15 would be a safer
figure for fixation of compensation. Out of
the aforesaid amount, the pecuniary
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
414
assistance rendered to the parents would
be to the extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd would
be his personal expenditure out of the
aforesaid total figure. In this manner, if
the personal expenditure of the deceased
is deducted from the said figure of Rs.
1,35,000/-, the pecuniary loss, which can
be safely said to have been incurred by
the respondents-parents comes to Rs.
90,000/-. Even though, the Tribunal
below
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.
1,00,000/-,
remaining
sum
of
Rs.
10,000/- for awarding compensation can
be treated to be the amount covering the
compensation for expenditure of funeral
etc. and the mental shock that the
respondents have suffered in the death of
their minor son. The award does not
appear to be exorbitant or unreasonable
and requires no interference in the
present appeal.

 Para 7
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) TAC 1 (SC)
AIR 2001 SC 3218
AIR 2001 SC 3660
1913 AC 1
2004 (1) TAC 3
(2001) 2 SCC 9

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.)

1. A child namely Ram Bharosey
met with an accident on account of having
collided with Bus No. UMA 9657
belonging to the appellant-U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation (in short
'U.P.S.R.T.C.'). The bus dashed against
his cycle from behind on the road and the
deceased child aged 12 years died on the
spot. The respondents, who happened to
be parents of the deceased, filed a claim
petition
before
the
Tribunal
below
claiming compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/-.
The claim was contested by the appellantU.P.S.R.T.C. and written statement was
filed with the pleadings that the accident
had not taken place with the aforesaid bus
belonging to it. It also disputes the income
of the child and stated that he was not
employed as a Labour at any place. The
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal
considering the pleadings of the parties
framed two issues and recorded its
findings that accident had taken place
with the aforesaid bus belonging to the
appellant
and
gave
an
award
of
compensation
amounting
to
Rs.
1,00,000/- in favour of the claimantsparents of the deceased and passed the
impugned judgment.

2. Aggrieved with the aforesaid
judgment of award given by the Tribunal
below, the appellant has come up in this
appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
materials available on the record.

4. The learned counsel for the
appellant, while placing his submissions
has strenuously urged that the Tribunal, in
passing the award in favour of the
respondents, has not adopted any rationale
for
fixation
of
the
quantum
of
compensation in the case. No multiplier
has been applied by the Tribunal for
fixation of such compensation. The
learned counsel has further urged that the
deceased child was only 12 years of age
and there was hardly any occasion for him
to be of any pecuniary help to the
claimants-parents, even though the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in
such cases of child death in accidents, has
chalked out a formula in the Second
Schedule. But that provision also cannot
be applied because this accident is said to
have taken place as back as 1989 whereas
the
payment
of
compensation
on
structured formula basis was provided by
the Amending Act 54 of 1994, which
came into effect from 14.11.1994, much
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V. Smt. Ram Beti and others
415
after the date of giving the impugned
award dated 04.03.1991. The learned
counsel has relied upon the case law of
Maitri Koley and another Vs. New India
Assurance Co. & others reported in 2004
(1) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.) and has thus submitted
that the procedure as provided in Section
163-A of the Act read with Second
Schedule will not be applicable for the
payment of award. The learned counsel
has also submitted that the award of a sum
of Rs. 1,00,000/- as given in the present
case, appears to be wholly unjustified.

From the record, it is clear that the
deceased child was 12 years of age on the
date of accident and the claimants -
parents were 35 and 40 years of age at
that point of time. From the evidence, it
had also stood fully proved that the child
was working as a Labour in brick-kiln and
was earning Rs. 25/- per day as his wages.
In the case of Lata Wadhwa and others
Vs. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R.
2001 S.C. 3218 and M.S. Grewal and
another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and
others, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3660, while
dealing with the issue in relation to the
death of children, the Apex Court has
placed reliance upon the decision of Lord
Atkinson in Taff Vale Railway Company
Vs. Jenkins, 1913 A.C. 1 and has ruled
that "In cases of death of an infant, there
may have been no actual pecuniary
benefit derived by its parents during the
child's
lifetime. But this will not
necessarily bar the parents claim and
prospective loss will found a valid claim
provided that the parents established that
they had a reasonable expectation of
pecuniary benefit if the child had lived."

5. In the present case, there was
sufficient evidence to the effect that even
though the deceased child was only 12
years of age but he had some earning of
his own as a Labour in the brick kiln.
There was definite future prospects for the
child to have further pecuniary gains in
his life and thus could be of financial
assistance to his parents who were 35 and
40 years of age at the time of his death.
The
Tribunal,
obviously,
has
not
discussed the rationale or the principles
on which it fixed the compensation and
has also not tried to reach the final
opinion as to availability of a multiplier
but that would not amount to a legal
ground for the appellant before this Court
to negate the entire claim of compensation
and to dismiss the claim petition. While
dealing as First Appellate Court in a
matter of First Appeal From Order, this
Court has to find out on the basis of
materials available on the record if some
compensation is to be awarded and what
would be its extent? In the case of
Municipal
Corporation
of
Greater
Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and
another reported in 2004 (1) T.A.C. 3
(S.C.), the Apex Court, while dealing with
a matter of accident claim relating to the
death of teenager boy-student having no
earning of himself, found that the
compensation to the claimants - parents
was payable. Thus, in the aforesaid matter
at hand if the child of 12 years having his
own earning has died and his parents
being 35 and 40 years of age only will
definitely
have
some
claim
for
compensation
as
they
were
having
substantial pecuniary loss in the death of
their child.

6. Now the question arises as to
what should be the actual compensation
payable in the present case? Section 163A of the Act provides payment of
compensation on structured formula basis
and such formula is detailed in Second
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
416
Schedule of the Act. A multiplier
available in the case of children upto the
age of 15 years is that of 15. As already
discussed above, this amendment in the
Act came into effect in the year 1994 and
the accident took place in the year 1989.
In view of the case law of Maitri Koley
(supra), the multiplier provided in the
Second Schedule may not be strictly
applicable in such case where accident
had taken place prior to the Act coming
into force but the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.)
and others Vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC
9, has permitted the structured formula to
be taken assistance as a safer guidance for
arriving at the amount of compensation
than any other method so far. In para 22
and 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as below: -

22. "The appellants claimed a sum of Rs.
2,36,000. But PW 1 widow of the
deceased said that her husband's income
was Rs. 1500 per month. PW 4 brother of
the deceased also supported the same
version. No contra-evidence has been
adduced in regard to that aspect. It is,
therefore, reasonable to believe that the
monthly income of the deceased was Rs.
1500. In calculating the amount of
compensation in this case we lean
ourselves to adopt the structured formula
provided in the Second Schedule to the
MV Act. Though it was formulated for the
purpose of Section 163-A of the MV Act,
we find it a safer guidance for arriving at
the amount of compensation than any
other method so far as the present case is
concerned.
23. The age of the deceased at the time of
accident was said to be 35 years plus. But
when that is taken along with the annual
income of Rs. 18,000 figure indicated in
the structured formula is Rs. 2,70,000.
When 1/3rd therefore is deducted the
balance would be Rs. 1,80,000. We,
therefore, deem it just and proper to fix
the said amount as total compensation
payable to the appellants as on the date of
their claim."

7. Thus, in the case at hand I
propose to take assistance as a safer
guidance for arriving at the amount of
compensation payable to the respondentsparents of the child. I have no hesitation
in adopting multiplier of 15 in making
such award. The deceased Ram Bharosey
used to earn Rs.25/- per day and with this
income his annual income will come at
Rs.9,000/-. If it is multiplied with 15 then
the figure comes to Rs.1,35,000/-. There
were definite prospects of the child after
having grown up in the age to have
further earnings but that apart if his total
annual income is counted at Rs. 9,000/-
only, the multiplier of 15 would be a safer
figure for fixation of compensation. Out
of the aforesaid amount, the pecuniary
assistance rendered to the parents would
be to the extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd would be
his personal expenditure out of the
aforesaid total figure. In this manner, if
the personal expenditure of the deceased
is deducted from the said figure of
Rs.1,35,000/-, the pecuniary loss, which
can be safely said to have been incurred
by the respondents-parents comes to
Rs.90,000/-. Even though, the Tribunal
below
has
awarded
a
sum
of
Rs.1,00,000/-,
remaining
sum
of
Rs.10,000/- for awarding compensation
can be treated to be the amount covering
the compensation for expenditure of
funeral etc. and the mental shock that the
respondents have suffered in the death of
their minor son. The award does not
appear to be exorbitant or unreasonable
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Salig Ram V. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others
417
and requires no interference in the present
appeal.

8. The appeal, thus, having no force
is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.5.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16308 of 2002

Salig Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Financial Hand Book, Vol. II Part II to
IV-Fundamental
Rule
56
(c)-
Constitution of India, Article 226, U.P.
Servant
(Disposal
of
Representation
Against
Adverse
Annual
Confidential
Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995R.4-Compulsory
Retirement-Non
communication
of
adverse
entriesPetitioner's
representations
against
adverse
entries
not
decided
in
accordance with law-Non application of
mind
by
Competent
authority-Non
consideration
of
previous
and
subsequent entries in ACR-Screening
Committee not report about petitioner's
utility after assessing his work and
conduct-Hence opinion of appointing
authority to retire him in public interest,
held,
vitiated-Further,
Dy.
Labour
Commissioner was prejudiced against
petitioner-Allegations of malafide held,
proved against him-Impugned orders set
aside.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the
petitioner's
representations
against
adverse entries were not decided in
accordance with law. The competent
authority did not applied his mind and
that the manner and method in which
the representations were decided was
arbitrary and unfair. The Screening
Committee did not consider the previous
and subsequent entries in the annual
confidential roll of the officer and only
raised a question on the assessment of
his work and utility to the department.
It did not positively report about his
utility after assessing his entire work
and conduct and thus the opinion of the
appointing authority to retire him inn
public interest was not justified and is
vitiated. I further find that Sri Ram
Singh was prejudiced against petitioner
and allegations of malafides are proved
against him.

Para 29
Case law discussed:
(1992) 2 SCC 299
AIR 1971 SC 40
(1970) 2 SCC 876
AIR 1992 SC 1020
(1993) 2 SCC 179
AIR 2001 SC 1109

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan for
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for respondents.

2. Sri Ram Singh, Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Ghaziabad was impleaded
as party respondent in both the writ
petitions. He has filed his counter
affidavit dated 24.1.2004 in writ petition
No. 16308 of 2002.

3. In Writ Petition No. 16308 of
2002, the petitioner who was serving as
Labour Enforcement Officer in the office
of Labour Commissioner, U.P. has prayed
for quashing adverse entries awarded to
the petitioner for the years 1996-97, 1997-