# UPSRTC v. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 126
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/upsrtc-v-bhawani-prasad-manjhi-51160
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 149, 171 & 173 - Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A -
Enhancement of compensation - Claim
petition filed alleging that daughter of
claimant was traveling by bus - At about
02:30 in morning, Neelgai crossed road
and due to high speed and rash and
negligent driving, driver lost control over
stearing
and
bus
fell
into
trench,
consequently
deceased
and
other
passengers
sustained
fatal
injuries
-
Deceased was taken to Cummunity Health
Centre by Police, she was declared dead -
FIR lodged by conductor of bus - On
account of sudden demise of deceased,
claimants suffered irreparable loss of love
and affection and financial help - Claimant
parents were dependent on deceased -
During pendency of claim petition, mother
of deceased died. (Para 3)

Appellant St.d that vehicle was driven by
competent driver, having valid driving
license and conductor - Vehicle was driven
with required speed - Bus was also
damaged in accident and no fault of driver
- Claim petition allowed - Impugned order.
(Para 4, 6)

Appellant contended that father can't be
dependent
in
absence
of
evidence,
therefore, claim petition not maintainable
and mother could have been dependent on
deceased. (Para 7)

Claimant submitted that he had retired
from service, not pensionable - The driver
has not been produced to prove accident,
accident on account of rash and negligent
driving proved by eye-witness - Father
proved that he had no independent
income. (Para 8, 16)

The multiplier of 16 applicable for age
group of 31-35 years, tribunal considered
age of deceased as 33 years on date of
accident,
therefore
tribunal
erred
in
allowing multiplier of 17 in place of 16 -
The
claimant
was
entitled
for
enhancement of compensation by adding
50% of salary of deceased towards future
prospects in her income. (Para 19, 25)

Accordingly, looking to fall in interest rate
and period from which interest was to be
awarded, interest can be enhanced from
6% to 9% p.a instead of 12% as claimed
w.e.f date of application till date of actual
payment. (Para 38)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,961 of 65,035. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39961 for what follows._

126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons was raised. Therefore, the matter
has been decided on the basis of contest
made by plaintiff and defendants and/or
their substituted heirs.

Whether any relief can be granted to
respondents.

43. Once this Court has held that suit
could not be decreed for relief of specific
performance
of
the
agreement,
but
execution of the agreement was well
established and the defendant-appellants
had failed to dislodge its due execution, a
question would arise as to whether the
plaintiff-respondents would also be entitled
for any relief. In this regard, Shri Jain drew
attention of this Court towards order dated
26.08.2004 passed in the instant appeal
whereby execution of the impugned decree
was stayed subject to deposit of a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per year by the appellants
before the trial court w.e.f. 01.12.2004
onwards with a further observation that
disposal of the amount so deposited would
abide by the final decision in the appeal.
The Court also observed that the amount
deposited would be invested in some
interest bearing Term Deposit in a
Nationalized Bank. Shri Jain submits that
the aforesaid order is being continuously
complied with by the appellants by making
yearly deposits strictly as directed by this
Court. Therefore, once the Court has held
that plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for
specific performance of the agreement, in
order
to
balance
the
equities
and
considering the length of litigation, it is
hereby directed that the amount deposited
by
the
appellants
and
invested
in
Nationalized Bank in terms of the order
dated 26.08.2004 passed in the instant
appeal shall be released with accrued
interest
in
favour
of
the
plaintiffrespondents forthwith. The concerned bank
is directed not to cause any delay in this
regard. If some aid of machinery of district
court is required, the same shall be
facilitated without any delay.

44. Consequently, the appeal is
allowed.

45. The impugned judgment, order and
decree
dated
20.10.1997
pronounced,
passed and drawn by the First Additional
Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Meerut in
Original Suit No.169 of 1983 (Gurudev
Singh v. Prem Kumar and others) and
judgment,
order
and
decree
dated
25.01.2001 pronounced, passed and drawn
by 18th Additional District Judge, Meerut
in Civil Appeal No.84 of 1997 (Prem
Kumar and another v. Gurudev Singh and
another) are hereby set aside and the
Original Suit No.169 of 1983 stands
dismissed for the relief of specific
performance but a relief of refund of
money to the plainiffs in terms of releasing
the amount deposited by the appellants, as
directed under paragraph 43 of this
judgment, is granted to the respondents.

46. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 126
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 2016

UPSRTC ...Appellant
Versus
Bhawani Prasad Manjhi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Akhter Abbas, Ambika Prasad
12 All. UPSRTC Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
127
Counsel for the Respondent:
Raj Kumar Pandey, Bhavya Upadhyay,
Desh Deepak Singh, Kulbhushan Singh,
Vidya Dhar Upadhyay, Vikas Sharma,
Yashovardhan Swarup

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 149, 171 & 173 - Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A -
Enhancement of compensation - Claim
petition filed alleging that daughter of
claimant was traveling by bus - At about
02:30 in morning, Neelgai crossed road
and due to high speed and rash and
negligent driving, driver lost control over
stearing
and
bus
fell
into
trench,
consequently
deceased
and
other
passengers
sustained
fatal
injuries
-
Deceased was taken to Cummunity Health
Centre by Police, she was declared dead -
FIR lodged by conductor of bus - On
account of sudden demise of deceased,
claimants suffered irreparable loss of love
and affection and financial help - Claimant
parents were dependent on deceased -
During pendency of claim petition, mother
of deceased died. (Para 3)

Appellant St.d that vehicle was driven by
competent driver, having valid driving
license and conductor - Vehicle was driven
with required speed - Bus was also
damaged in accident and no fault of driver
- Claim petition allowed - Impugned order.
(Para 4, 6)

Appellant contended that father can't be
dependent
in
absence
of
evidence,
therefore, claim petition not maintainable
and mother could have been dependent on
deceased. (Para 7)

Claimant submitted that he had retired
from service, not pensionable - The driver
has not been produced to prove accident,
accident on account of rash and negligent
driving proved by eye-witness - Father
proved that he had no independent
income. (Para 8, 16)

The multiplier of 16 applicable for age
group of 31-35 years, tribunal considered
age of deceased as 33 years on date of
accident,
therefore
tribunal
erred
in
allowing multiplier of 17 in place of 16 -
The
claimant
was
entitled
for
enhancement of compensation by adding
50% of salary of deceased towards future
prospects in her income. (Para 19, 25)

Accordingly, looking to fall in interest rate
and period from which interest was to be
awarded, interest can be enhanced from
6% to 9% p.a instead of 12% as claimed
w.e.f date of application till date of actual
payment. (Para 38)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680, (Para 59.3, 59.5)

2. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr.; (2009) 6 SCC 121, (Para 19,
30 to 32, 42)

3. Manjuri Bera (Smt.) Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd & anr.; (2007) 10 SCC 643

4. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130,
(Para 20 to 24)

5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Smt. Seema Devi & ors.; FAFO No.3325 of 2016,
order dated 24.06.2024

6. Gohar Mohammed Vs Uttar Pradesh St. Road
Transport Corporation & ors.; (2023) 4 SCC 381,
(Para 46)

7. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs
Supreeth S. @ Supreeth Sathyendra since dead
by his LRs; M.F.A. No.511 of 2020 (MV-D), (Para
33 to 38)

8. Bindu Mishra & ors. Vs Uday Yadav & ors.;
Misc. Appeal No.2526 of 2018, order dated
06.08.2024, (Para 31 to 33)

9. Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & ors.;
(2002) 1 SCC 367
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & ors. Vs U.O.I.&
anr.; (2009) 7 SCC 372

11. Panjab and Sind Bank Vs Allied Beverage Co.
Private Limited & ors.; (2010) 10 SCC 640, (Para
18)

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

13. Nutan Rani & anr. Vs Gurmail Singh & ors.;
(2018) 17 SCC 109

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Ambika Prasad, learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
and
Shri
Yashovardhan Swarup Assisted by Ms.
Bhavya Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. This first appeal from order under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (here-in-after referred as the Act of
1988) has been filed for setting aside the
judgment and award dated 29.10.2015
passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.150 of 2012; Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
and Another Vs. U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, by means of which the claim
petition has been partly allowed and an
amount
of
Rs.35,42,823/-
has
been
awarded alongwith simple interest at the
rate of 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition.

3. The claim petition was filed
alleging therein that the daughter of the
claimant-respondent Dr. Tandra Manjhi
was traveling on 18.05.2011 by Bus
No.U.P.-30A-8092 of Hardoi Depot of the
appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. She was a bona fide
passenger of the bus from Anand Vihar Bus
Terminal, Delhi to Lucknow. The bus was
being driven by its driver Valeel Ahamad at
a high speed and in negligent manner.
When it reached about 8 km. ahead of
Sandila on Kachauna-Sandila road within
P.S. Kachauna, District- Hardoi at about
02:30 in the morning, a blue cow (Neelgai)
crossed the road and due to high speed and
rash and negligent driving,the driver of the
bus lost his control over the stearing and
the bus fell into a trench, consequently the
deceased and other passengers sustained
fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to
Cummunity Health Centre, Sandila, Hardoi
by the Police, where she was declared dead.
Her
postmortem
was
conducted
in
mortuary Hardoi. The deceased died due to
fatal injuries sustained by her in the said
accident. A first information report was
lodged by the conductor of the bus at
Police Station Kachauna, District, Hardoi at
G.D. No.15/10.15 on 18.05.2011. Had the
deceased not met with the fatal injuries, she
would have survived up to age of 80 years.
On account of sudden demise of deceased
the family structure of the entire family has
been shattered and claimants are virtually
on dearth and have suffered irreparable loss
of love and affection as well as financial
help. The deceased was working on the
post of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry, Mental
Health Department of Chhatrapati Sahji
Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow.
The claim petition was filed claiming that
the claimant father and mother were
dependent
on
the
deceased.
During
pendency of the claim petition, the claimant
no.2 Smt. Archana Manjhi i.e. mother of
the deceased died. Accordingly, the claim
petition was amended writing dead against
her.

4. The claim petition was contested by
the appellant by filing written statement
denying the averments made in the claim
petition mostly for want of knowledge. In
the additional statement in the written
statement, it has been admitted that the Bus
No.U.P.-30A-8092 (Hardoi Depot) of the
12 All. UPSRTC Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
129
appellant corporation was operating on
18.05.2011 on Delhi-Hardoi route to
Lucknow. It was further stated that the
vehicle was being driven by a competent
driver Valeel Ahmad, having a valid
driving license and conductor Rajesh Singh
Somvanshi. The vehicle was being driven
with the required speed and carefully.
While the vehicle reached eight kilo meters
ahead of Sandila near Dabur Plant at about
02:00 in the night, suddenly a blue cow
came running in front of bus, therefore, the
driver of the bus turned on the right side of
the road to save the animal, on account of
which the bus was uncontrolled and fell in
a three feet ditch, accordingly the accident
had occurred. The bus was also damaged in
the accident. The said accident had
occurred on account of sudden coming of
blue cow in front of bus, therefore, there
was no fault of the driver. The information
of the accident was given by the conductor
to the concerned police station. The
compensation has been demanded on the
higher side, which is not acceptable. The
claim
petition
has
been
filed
on
misconceived and baseless grounds, which
is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the
parties, two issues were framed, which are
extracted here-in-below:-

"1. क्या दिनांक 18.05.2011 को समय 230 ए०एम० पर स्थान कचौना सण्डीला रोड, थाना कचौना दजला
हरिोई में यू०पी० एस०आर०टी० की बस संख्या यू०पी० 30 ए /
8092 के चालक द्वारा वाहन को तेजी व लापरवाहीपूवाक चलाने
एवं उसके आगे नीलगाय आ जाने पर वाहन पर दनयंत्रण खो िेने के
कारण बस पलट गयी दजससे उस पर सवार डा० तन्रा माझी को
गंभीर चोटें आने के कारण उसकी मृत्यु हुई?

2. क्या याचीगण कोई प्रदतकर पाने के अदिकारी
हैं? यदि हां तो दकतना?"

6.
The
claimant-respondent
got
himself examined as PW-1 and one Shri
Suresh Chandra Pandey an eye witness as
PW-2. Shri Lal Ji Upadhyay was produced
to prove the income of the deceased as PW3. They were cross-examined. On behalf of
the claimant-respondent several documents
were filed. On behalf of the respondentappellant the conductor of the bus Rajesh
Singh Somvanshi was examined as DW-1.
No documentary evidence was filed by the
respondent-
appellant.
After
hearing
learned counsel for the parties and
considering the pleadings, evidence and
material on record, the tribunal allowed the
claim petition and awarded the aforesaid
amount.

7. Learned counsel for the respondentappellant submitted that the father can not
be a dependent in absence of evidence,
therefore, the claim petition by him was not
maintainable. Mother could have been
treated
dependent
on
the
deceased,
however, she died during pendency of the
claim petition, therefore no compensation
could have been awarded. It was further
alleged that there was no fault of driver in
the accident because the accident had
occurred as a blue cow had suddenly come
in front of the bus. It was also submitted
that even if the claim petition could have
been allowed, the multiplier of 17 has
wrongly been applied in place of 16
because the deceased was aged about 33
years at the time of accident. Thus, the
submission is that the impugned judgment
and award is not sustainable in the eyes of
law and liable to be set-aside. Learned
counsel for the appellant relied on National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others; (2017) 16 SCC 680,
Sarla Verma (Smt.) And Others Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation
and
Another; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Manjuri
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bera (Smt.) Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd and Another; (2007) 10
SCC 643.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimant-respondent submitted that the
claimant-respondent i.e. the father of the
deceased had retired from service on
21.12.2000 and his service was not
pensionable, therefore, after retirement he
and his wife i.e. the mother of the deceased
were dependent on the deceased and
residing with her. The deceased daughter
was supporting her father and mother for
the last 11 years before the accident on
18.05.2011. The mother died during
pendency of the claim petition. The plea of
dependency in the claim petition has not
been denied in the written statement. He
also submitted that the claimant-respondent
was dependent on her daughter and no
evidence contrary to it has been adduced by
the respondent-appellant. Even in the crossexamination, no question was put about the
dependency of father. Thus, the submission
of learned counsel for the respondentappellant in regard to dependency is
misconceived and not tenable. He further
submitted that the accident with blue cow
has not been proved. Even the driver has
not been produced to prove the accident,
whereas the accident on account of rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
respondent-appellant corporation has been
proved by the evidence of eye witness.

9. He further, pressing his crossobjection, submitted that the learned
tribunal has failed to award the future
prospects and awarded lesser amount
towards conventional heads, whereas 50%
of the salary should have been awarded
towards the future prospects in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others and
the interest has also been awarded towards
the lower side. However he could not
dispute submission of learned counsel for
the appellant about multiplier. Thus, the
submission is that the appeal is liable to be
dismissed accordingly and cross-objection
is liable to be allowed and award is liable to
be modified accordingly. He relied on
National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others; (2017) 16
SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and Others; (2018) 18 SCC
130.

10. Opposing the submissions of
learned counsel for the claimant-respondent
in regard to enhancement of compensation
and award of the future prospects, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-appellants
submitted
that
since
the
impugned
judgment and award is not sustainable and
liable to be set-aside, therefore, the
question of award of future prospects does
not arise. However, even if, the impugned
judgment and award is sustained and crossobjection is to be allowed awarding future
prospects, the interest can not be awarded
on the future prospects as the same is for
income in future. He relied on a coordinate
bench
judgment
and
order
dated
24.06.2024 passed in ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Seema Devi and 6 Others; First Appeal
From Order No.3325 of 2016.

11. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

12.
The
learned
tribunal
while
considering
the
issue
no.1,
after
considering the pleadings of the parties and
the evidence before it, came to the
12 All. UPSRTC Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
131
conclusion that it has been admitted by
DW-1 in his cross-examination that the bus
takes 14-15 hours in reaching Lucknow
from Delhi, whereas on the date of accident
it had taken about 15 hours in reaching
Hardoi, therefore, it is apparent that the bus
had stopped at several places for long
period and for reaching on time, the driver
of the bus must have driven the bus rashly
and negligently, on account of which the
accident had occurred. The PW-2, who is
an eye witness and his statement has also
been considered by the tribunal, has stated
that he was traveling in the bus No.U.P.-
30A-8092 of Hardoi Depot, which was
coming from Anand Vihar Bus Terminal to
Lucknow on 17.05.2011. The accident
occurred on 18.05.2011 at 02.15 in the
night. The deceased Tandra Manjhi was
traveling in the bus. The bus was being
driven rashly and negligently by its driver
at a very high speed, on account of which
the passengers sitting on the back seat had
fallen twice and the seat had also fallen.
The driver and conductor had taken more
than half an hour in having tea at several
places. At about 06:45 on 17.05.2011,
when it reached Farrukhabad, the driver
said that we will start after taking the
dinner and the passengers may also take the
dinner, tea etc., thereafter, the driver and
conductor disappeared and they came back
at about 08:30. Thereafter the bus started at
about 09:00. The driver had again driven
the bus rashly and negligently, on account
of which the luggage of the passengers had
also fallen. The bus had started at about
01:00 on 18.05.2011 from Hardoi and the
accident had occurred at 02:15. In crossexamination he reiterated the evidence
given in the affidavit of examination-inchief. He also stated that he had not seen
that the accident had occurred on account
of any collision with any body. He also said
that the bus had fallen in a ditch on the
right side. The Police had come about
03:30, who had taken Tandara Manjhi to
the Community Health Centre, Sandila,
Hardoi. Thus, it is apparent that nothing
could be extracted from PW-2, who is an
eye witness and an employee working in
the office of the Deputy Transport
Commissioner, which may create any
doubt about his veracity

13. The DW-1 is the conductor of the
bus. The driver of the bus has not been
produced by the appellant. The DW-1 has
stated in his evidence that the blue cow had
come in front of bus, which was running
with a high speed, therefore, the driver had
taken emergency breaks and tried to save
the animal by turning to the right, therefore,
it is not disputed that the bus was being
driven by the driver with a very high speed,
whereas at 02:00 in the intervening night, a
driver should have driven the bus at the
proper speed and carefully so that he may
control in case of any exigency but it is
apparent that the driver was not cautious
enough and driving bus rashly and
negligently at a very high speed to cover
the time and on account of rash and
negligent driving by the driver, the accident
had occurred. Though the coming of a blue
cow suddenly before the bus has been
stated by him but it could not be proved by
any cogent evidence as it has been denied
by the eye-witness PW-2. PW-1 has stated
that he had come to know about blue cow
through news paper. The driver has not
been produced to prove it, who could have
been the best witness. Even otherwise, even
if it has come before the bus, the accident
had occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle of the
driver at a very high speed. Thus, the
contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that there was no fault of the
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
driver in the accident is misconceived and
not tenable and is accordingly repelled.

14.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-appellant had also submitted
that the father can not be treated a
dependent without any proof, while the
mother can be treated and the mother had
died during pendency of the claim petition,
therefore, the claim petition could not have
been allowed by the tribunal. The claimantrespondent i.e. father and mother Smt.
Archana Manjhi filed the claim petition as
dependent of the deceased Dr. Tandra
Manjhi, stating in paragraph-2 that the
deceased was the earning member of the
family, who was maintaining the family
consisting of old father and mother as the
father of the deceased was not keeping
good health. The father and mother have
been shown as dependant in paragraph-7 of
the claim petition also, which is name and
ages of the dependents of the dead persons
indicating relationship with him and also
monthly income and the source of such
income but no income has been shown. The
written statement was filed denying the
averments of paragraphs-1 to 8 for want of
knowledge and any documentary evidence.
It was further stated in paragraph-22 (subparagraph-2) of the claim-petition that the
deceased was the earning member of her
family who was maintaining the entire
family consisting of old father and mother
of the deceased not keeping good health.
The contents of paragraph-22 have also
been denied stating that the proof of the
same is on the claimants and the
compensation has been demanded on the
higher side. Thus, the dependency of the
claimant-respondent father on the deceased
has specifically not been denied.

15. The claimant-respondent appeared
as PW-1 and stated in his evidence that on
account of death of daughter he and his
family has suffered irreparable loss. In his
cross-examination he stated that he retired
from the post of Senior Production
Engineer in TSL, Naini, Allahabad on
31.12.2000 and he is not getting any
pension after his retirement. He has also
stated that he has two sons and wife. The
elder son is deaf and dumb and married and
residing with him. The younger son is
unmarried and has been appointed on the
post of Assistant Cashier in Medical
College,
Lucknow
on
compassionate
ground in place of his deceased daughter
Tandra Manjhi. His younger son is residing
separately in Lucknow. Thus they does not
seem to be able to maintain the father and
mother i.e the claimants. The crossexamination indicates that no question has
been put in regard to the dependency of the
claimant-respondent, who is the father of
the deceased. It is also not in dispute that
he alongwith his deceased wife was
residing with his deceased daughter Dr.
Tandra Manjhi. Therefore, it can not be
said that he was not dependent on the
deceased.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Sarla Verma (Smt) And Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
(Supra), has observed that subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to
have his own income and will not be
considered as a dependent and the mother
alone will be considered as a dependent.
Therefore, if the father proves that he has no
independent income then he has to be
considered as dependent and in the present
case it has been proved. In the present case
the claimant-father has proved it. Paragraph
30 to 32 are extracted here-in-below:-

"30. Though in some cases the
deduction to be made towards personal and
12 All. UPSRTC Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
133
living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4
SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply
standardised
deductions.
Having
considered several subsequent decisions of
this Court, we are of the view that where
the deceased was married, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where
the number of dependent family members is
4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members
exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a
bachelor and the claimants are the parents,
the deduction follows a different principle.
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.

32. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as
the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where the family of
the bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where
he has a widowed mother and large
number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and
contribution to the family will be taken as
two-third."

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Manjuri Bera (Smt.) Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd and Another,
has held that if a legal representative, who
is not dependant files an application for
compensation, the quantum cannot be less
than the liability referable to Section 140 of
the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss
of dependency, the claimant if he or she is
a legal representative will be entitled to
compensation, the quantum of which shall
be not less than the liability flowing from
Section 140 of the Act. However, this case
is not applicable on the facts and
circumstances of the present case because
the claimant-respondent has proved his
dependency and nothing could be extracted
from him or no contrary evidence has been
adduced on account of which, it may be
said that the claimant-respondent i.e. the
father
alongwith
his
wife
was
not
dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled for the benefit of
aforesaid cases. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others (Supra), has held in paragraph 59.5
that for determination of the multiplicand,
the deduction for personal and living
expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma. The paragraph 59.5 is extracted
here-in-below:-

"59.5. For determination of the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Sarla
Verma [Sarla
Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ)
770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we
have reproduced hereinbefore."

18. One of the ground for challenge by
learned counsel for the appellant is that the
multiplier of 17 has wrongly been applied
in place of 16 because age of the deceased
was 33 years, at the time of accident, in
view of Constitution Bench judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others (Supra). In the said
judgment, it has been held that as far as the
multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal
and the Courts shall be guided by Step-2
that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla
Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said
judgment. The relevant paragraph 42 is
extracted here-in-below:-

"42. As far as the multiplier is
concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the
courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds
place in para 19 of Sarla Verma [Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009)
2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1002] read with para 42 of the said
judgment. For the sake of completeness,
para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma
case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2
SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 140)

"42. 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
[Kerala
SRTC
v.
Susamma
Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC
(Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v.
Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] and
Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 1657] ), 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, M14 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."

19. In view of above, the multiplier of
16 is applicable for the age group of 31-35
years. The tribunal has considered the age
of the deceased 33 years on the date of
accident, which has not been disputed by
the claimant-respondent, therefore, this
Court is of the view that the learned
tribunal has erred in allowing the multiplier
of 17 in place of 16. Thus, the appeal is
liable to be partly allowed and the
multiplier of 16 is to be applied in place of
17 and impugned award is liable to be
modified accordingly.

20. Now the Court proceeds to
consider the cross-objection. The claim
petition was filed under Section 166 of the
Act of 1988. Section 166 of the Act of
1988
provides
for
application
for
compensation. Section 168 of the Act of
1988 provides for award of claims tribunal.
It provides that on receipt of an application
for compensation made under section 166,
the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving
notice of the application to the insurer and
after giving the parties an opportunity of
being heard, hold an inquiry to the claim
and subject to the provisions of section
162, which provides refund in certain cases
of compensation paid under section 161,
may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to
it to be "just". Thus, the duty has been cast
12 All. UPSRTC Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
135
upon the claims tribunal to award the "just
compensation" after an enquiry.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and Others(supra), has
held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial and welfare legislation. The
Court is duty bound and entitled to award
"just
compensation",
irrespective
of
whether any plea in that behalf was raised
by the Claimant. It has further been
observed that a Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
'Pranay Sethi(supra)' has dealt with various
heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case and one of these
heads is loss of consortium thus the
consortium is one of the components of
consortiums. The relevant paragraphs 20 to
21 are extracted here-in-below:-

"20. MACT as well as the High
Court have not awarded any compensation
with respect to loss of consortium and loss
of estate, which are the other conventional
heads
under
which
compensation
is
awarded in the event of death, as
recognised by the Constitution Bench
in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 205] . The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial and welfare legislation. The
Court is duty-bound and entitled to award
"just
compensation",
irrespective
of
whether any plea in that behalf was raised
by the claimant. In exercise of our power
under Article 142, and in the interests of
justice, we deem it appropriate to award an
amount of Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate
to Respondents 1 and 2.

21. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance
Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads
under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is loss of consortium. In legal
parlance, "consortium" is a compendious
term
which
encompasses
"spousal
consortium", "parental consortium", and
"filial
consortium".
The
right
to
consortium would include the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to
his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179
: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149]"

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case
of
Magma
General
Insurance
Company Limited versus Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram and others(supra) has held
that one of heads of compensation is 'loss
of consortium' and the kinds of consortium
have been given in paragraphs 21.1 to 21.3.
The relevant paragraphs 21 to 24 are
extracted here-in-below:-

"21. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2
SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various
heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is loss of consortium. In legal
parlance, "consortium" is a compendious
term
which
encompasses
"spousal
consortium", "parental consortium", and
"filial
consortium".
The
right
to
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consortium would include the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to
his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal
consortium
is
generally defined as rights pertaining to
the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society,
cooperation, affection, and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation"

21.2. Parental
consortium
is
granted to the child upon the premature
death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the
right of the parents to compensation in the
case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are
valued
for
their
love,
affection,
companionship and their role in the family
unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism
reflecting changing norms about the status
and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised
that the value of a child's consortium far
exceeds
the
economic
value
of
the
compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions
therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of
the love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial legislation aimed at providing
relief to the victims or their families, in
cases of genuine claims. In case where a
parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to children
who lose their parents in motor vehicle
accidents under the Act. A few High Courts
have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect
to the principles on which compensation
could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.

24. The amount of compensation
to be awarded as consortium will be
governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under "loss of consortium"
as laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the present
case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an
amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium."

23. In view of above, once a claim
petition
has
been
filed
claiming
compensation, it is the duty of the tribunal
or court to make an enquiry into the matter
in accordance with law and the rules and
thereafter award "just compensation" as
admissible
in
accordance
with
law,
irrespective of whether any claim has been
made or not, therefore, when an appeal has
been filed before this Court, this Court has
to consider as to whether the "just
compensation" has been awarded by the
tribunal or not and in case it has not been
awarded, this court can award the same, if
it is "just" and in accordance with law. In
this case, a cross-objection has also been
filed for enhancement of compensation
alleging that "just compensation" has not
been awarded because the learned tribunal
has failed to award the future prospects in
accordance with law and the aforesaid
12 All. UPSRTC Vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi
137
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 'Pranay Sethi'(supra), therefore, the
same may be allowed and 50% of salary of
deceased may be enhanced. It has been
alleged that the deceased was an energetic
doctor of about 33 years old and she was
very actively performing the duties towards
the service as well as her domestic affairs
of her family and if she would have not met
with the fatal accident, she would have
survived till the age of 80 years.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
(Supra), has recorded his conclusions in
paragraph 59 and paragraph 59.3 provides
that 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 40 years,
should be made. The relevant paragraph
59.3 is extracted here-in-below:-

"59.3. 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."

25. Admittedly, the deceased was aged
about 33 years at the time of accident,
therefore, applying the aforesaid, this Court
is of the view that the 50% of the actual
salary of the deceased is to be awarded
towards the future prospects. However, the
learned tribunal has failed to consider it and
has not awarded any amount towards future
prospects. It is also noticed that in Rule
220-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998, it has been provided that the
future prospects of a deceased, shall be
added in the actual salary or minimum
wages as 50% of the salary below the 40
years of age. Thus, this Court is of he view
that the claimant-respondent is entitled for
enhancement of compensation by adding
50% of salary of deceased towards future
prospects in her income.

26. Learned counsel for the claimantrespondent also submitted that the interest
has been awarded on the lower side,
therefore, it should be enhanced to 12%,
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited
Vs.