# United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Surya Narayan Shukla & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1572
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-17
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-company-ltd-v-surya-narayan-shukla-ors-43787
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 173
Compensation - Fatal accident - Bachelor deceased - Deduction towards personal expenses - Multiplier -
Deceased aged 20 years - Claimants parents - Deduction of 50% mandatory - Multiplier to be applied on
basis of age of deceased and not dependants - Tribunal erred in deducting only one-third and applying
multiplier of 15 - Award modified - Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65; Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 - Followed.
Appeal by insurer - Claimants entitled to defend quantum without cross-appeal - High Court duty to
determine just compensation - Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639 - Applied.

FACTS:
5 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surya Narayan Shukla & Ors.

1573
On 2 February 2004 at about 2.30 p.m., Dinesh Kumar Shukla, aged about 20 years, while riding a bicycle
along with another person, was hit by Truck No. UP 62 C 5079 near Tikri turn. He died on the spot. The truck
was owned by respondent no.3 and driven by respondent no.4.

The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.67,75,000/- alleging rash and negligent driving of the truck. It was pleaded that the
deceased was a B.Com. student with a diploma in computer application and earning Rs.4,000/- per month.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:
The owner and driver denied the accident and alleged false implication. The insurer pleaded absence of valid
driving licence, lack of insurance cover and contributory negligence of the deceased.

The Tribunal framed issues relating to occurrence of accident, negligence, validity of driving licence, insurance
cover and entitlement to compensation.

The claimants examined three witnesses including an eye-witness. The opposite parties did not lead evidence
and proceedings went ex parte against the owner and driver.

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS:
The Tribunal held that:
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck.
The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-.
The deceased was a bachelor.
One-third deduction towards personal expenses was made.
Multiplier of 15 was applied.
Compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
Whether the Tribunal applied correct deduction towards personal and living expenses of a bachelor deceased?
Whether the multiplier was correctly applied?
Whether the compensation awarded required modification?

ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
The Court held that as per Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari, in case of a bachelor, deduction towards
personal and living expenses should ordinarily be 50%.

The Tribunal committed an error in deducting only one-third.

Further, relying upon Amrit Bhanu Shali, it was reiterated that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of
the age of the deceased and not the dependants. For a deceased aged 20 years, the appropriate multiplier is

## Text

1572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it cannot be said that for
cancellation of bail it is necessary that ground taken on that must arises after the bail was granted
and in the present case the applicant has miserably failed on two counts that any material fact has
been suppressed or trial court has granted bail without going into the merits of the case. As already
observed earlier that the bail of the opposite party was granted on two counts, firstly on merits and
the findings and reasons given by the court concerned was reasonable and justified, and the bail
granted secondly on the ground under Section 437 (2) is also properly discussed, and correctly
observed and no interfere is required by this Court.

20. The facts and grounds which has been taken in the present application for cancellation
of bail under Section 439(2) of the Act, do not disclosed any ground for interference by this Court.

21. The bail cancellation application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

22. However, the court below is directed to expedite the trial of the case at the earliest.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No.- 622 Of 2005

United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
versus
Surya Narayan Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel For the Appellant:
Tarun Kumar Mishra, Pankaj Pandey, R.B. Pandey

Counsel For the Respondents:
Pankaj Verma, Pankaj Pandey

HEADNOTES:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 173
Compensation - Fatal accident - Bachelor deceased - Deduction towards personal expenses - Multiplier -
Deceased aged 20 years - Claimants parents - Deduction of 50% mandatory - Multiplier to be applied on
basis of age of deceased and not dependants - Tribunal erred in deducting only one-third and applying
multiplier of 15 - Award modified - Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65; Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 - Followed.
Appeal by insurer - Claimants entitled to defend quantum without cross-appeal - High Court duty to
determine just compensation - Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639 - Applied.

FACTS:
5 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surya Narayan Shukla & Ors.

1573
On 2 February 2004 at about 2.30 p.m., Dinesh Kumar Shukla, aged about 20 years, while riding a bicycle
along with another person, was hit by Truck No. UP 62 C 5079 near Tikri turn. He died on the spot. The truck
was owned by respondent no.3 and driven by respondent no.4.

The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.67,75,000/- alleging rash and negligent driving of the truck. It was pleaded that the
deceased was a B.Com. student with a diploma in computer application and earning Rs.4,000/- per month.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:
The owner and driver denied the accident and alleged false implication. The insurer pleaded absence of valid
driving licence, lack of insurance cover and contributory negligence of the deceased.

The Tribunal framed issues relating to occurrence of accident, negligence, validity of driving licence, insurance
cover and entitlement to compensation.

The claimants examined three witnesses including an eye-witness. The opposite parties did not lead evidence
and proceedings went ex parte against the owner and driver.

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS:
The Tribunal held that:
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck.
The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-.
The deceased was a bachelor.
One-third deduction towards personal expenses was made.
Multiplier of 15 was applied.
Compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
Whether the Tribunal applied correct deduction towards personal and living expenses of a bachelor deceased?
Whether the multiplier was correctly applied?
Whether the compensation awarded required modification?

ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
The Court held that as per Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari, in case of a bachelor, deduction towards
personal and living expenses should ordinarily be 50%.

The Tribunal committed an error in deducting only one-third.

Further, relying upon Amrit Bhanu Shali, it was reiterated that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of
the age of the deceased and not the dependants. For a deceased aged 20 years, the appropriate multiplier is
18.

The principle laid down in Ranjana Prakash was applied, holding that even in an insurer's appeal, claimants
are entitled to defend the award by pointing out errors, though enhancement cannot be granted in absence of
cross-appeal.

REASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
Monthly income: Rs.3,000/-
Annual income: Rs.36,000/-
Deduction @ 50%: Rs.18,000/-
1574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Multiplier: 18
Loss of dependency: Rs.3,24,000/-
Funeral and ritual expenses: Rs.2,000/-
Total compensation: Rs.3,26,000/-
Interest awarded @ 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization.

DECISION:
The appeal was partly allowed. The impugned award dated 5 May 2005 was modified by reducing the
compensation to Rs.3,26,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum. Amount already paid was directed to be
adjusted. No order as to costs.
Order: Appeal partly allowed.
Record: To be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Pandey,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.

3. This first appeal from order under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
''Act'), has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and
award dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gonda in MACP No.29 of 2004 (Surya Narayan Shukla and
another versus Shiva Shankar Mishra and others), whereby a sum of Rs.3,62,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% has been awarded to the respondent nos.1 and 2.

4. The deceased, Dinesh Kumar Shukla, is the son of the respondent nos.1 and 2. On
02.02.2004, at about 2.30 in the afternoon, the deceased and Shyama Prasad were riding a bicycle
on their way home. When they reached Tikri turn, a truck no.UP 62 C 5079, came from the
opposite direction and hit the bicycle. As a result of the accident Dinesh Kumar Shukla died on the
spot.

5. The parents of the deceased Dinesh Kumar Shukla, filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs 67,75,000/-. They pleaded that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, owned by respondent no.3 and driven by
respondent no.4 and that, at the time of his death the age of the deceased was 20 years and he was a
student of B.Com and had a diploma in computer application and was earning Rs.4,000 per month.

6. By their joint written statement, respondent nos.3 and 4 denied the averments made in
the claim petition. It was inter alia stated by them that the alleged accident never took place and
that they were falsely implicated on account of some dispute with the police of the local Police
Chowki, Katra. The appellant also filed its written statement stating that the driver of the truck did
not possess a valid driving license and that the truck was not insured with them and also that the
accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the deceased.
5 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surya Narayan Shukla & Ors.

1575
7. The tribunal framed the following issues:

1⁄411⁄2 D;k fnukad 2&2&04 dks le; yxHkx 2-30 ct s fnu foi{kh la02 Vad la[;k ; w0ih0 62 lh 5079
rst j¶rkj o ykijokgh ls pykrk gqvk ;kph d s iq= fnus'k dqekj 'kqDyk dks VDdj ekj fn;k ftlls mldh ekSd s ij gh
nq?kZVuk LFky ij gh e`R;q gks xbZ\

1⁄421⁄2 D;k pkyd d s ikl oS| pkyd vuqKki= Fkk\

1⁄431⁄2 D;k nq?kZVuk d s le; xr okgu foi{kh la[;k 3 d s ;gkWa chfer Fkh vkSj ml s chek dh 'krksZ a d s
v/khu pyk;k tk jgk Fkk\

1⁄441⁄2 D;k ;kphx.k fdlh izfrdj dks ikus d s gdnkj gSaA ;fn gkWa rks fdruk vkSj fdll s\

8. In support of the claim petition the first respondent examined himself as PW 1, Vinod
Kumar Upadhyay as PW 2 and Shyama Prasad Pathak, who had witnessed the accident, as PW 3.
The respondents nos.1 and 2 also field documentary evidence in support of their case. No one
appeared on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4, and as such, the claim proceeded ex parte against
them.
9. After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal decided issue no.1 in the affirmative and held
that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck owned by the third
respondent.

10. While dealing with issue no.2, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the income of the
deceased was Rs.3,000/-. It also determined that the deceased was a bachelor. The Tribunal
deducted 1/3rd of his monthly salary and determined the loss of earnings to the family at Rs.2,000/-
. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier 15 and declared that the claimants are entitled to get
compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the
claim petition.

11. On the issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses in Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court has held that:

"31. ... In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence
to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father."

12. The deduction ordinarily in the case of a bachelor at 50% has been recently approved
by a three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9
SCC 65. Paragraph 41 and 42 of the said report are as follows:
1576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and
living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or
spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what
he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and
living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the
personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants.

42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of
deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a
case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out."

13. Admittedly, both the parents, namely, the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein have been held
to be dependent on the deceased Dinesh Kumar Shukla and therefore, the Tribunal held that they
have the right to get the compensation. The Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd only towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased. Whereas, in view of the settled legal position, the
deceased being a bachelor and the claimants being parents, the deduction of 50% should have been
made under the head of personal and living expenses.

14. Though the counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 is not present, however, while going
through the impugned award it has transpired that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 on
the basis of the age of the parents/ claimants. In Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2012) 11 SCC 738, the Apex Court has held as follows:

"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the
basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age
may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of
compensation."

15. In Sarla Verma (supra) the Apex Court in paragraph 42 of the said report has held that
the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table of the said judgment
which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death
was 20 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into
consideration the age of the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 15.

16. In Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639, the Apex Court has laid
down that in an appeal filed by the owner / insurer the claimants can defend the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award.
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the report are reproduced below:

"6. We are of the view that the High Court committed an error in ignoring the
contention of the claimants. It is true that the claimants had not challenged the award of the
Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to take note of the future prospects and add
30% to the annual income of the deceased. But the claimants were not aggrieved by Rs 23,134
5 All. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surya Narayan Shukla & Ors.

1577
being taken as the monthly income. There was therefore no need for them to challenge the award of
the Tribunal. But where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to
reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award,
which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as
compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a
contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also
be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that
the claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their
defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by
the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by
urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections.

7. This principle also flows from Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure
which enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial
court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had
not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it
to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code can however be pressed
into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make
the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a
larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seek compensation against the owner and
the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by
the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged
the non-grant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may.

8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of
who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by
applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined
by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the
appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the
compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any
appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the
compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce
the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation."

(emphasis supplied)

17. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-. The
Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid income for computing the compensation.
The annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. If 50% of the said income is deducted towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family will be Rs.18,000/-. At the time
1578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the accident, the deceased Dinesh Kumar Shukla was a bachelor of about 20 years old. Hence on
the basis of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) applying the multiplier of 18, the amount will come
to Rs.3,24,000/-. Besides this amount the claimants have been held entitled to Rs.2,000/- on
account of funeral and ritual expenses. Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.3,26,000/- and the
claimants are entitled to get the said amount of compensation instead of the amount awarded by the
Tribunal. They would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
the filing of the claim petition till realization.

18. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award
stands modified to the above extent. The amount which has already been received by the
respondents nos.1 and 2 shall be adjusted and the rest of the amount be paid at an early date. No
order as to cost.

19. The original record shall be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.- 7281 Of 2016

Veeri Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., A.S.G.I., T.A. Singh

PROCEEDINGS:
This Habeas Corpus writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the preventive detention of the petitioner
under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order dated 18.09.2015 was passed by
the District Magistrate, Firozabad. The State Government approved the detention under Section 12(1) of the
Act after receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board.

PROCEDURE:
The detention order was founded on an incident dated 06.08.2015 involving indiscriminate firing in a densely
populated locality resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to another. An FIR was registered as Case
Crime No. 332 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law