# Vishal Gupta v. Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 613
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No.1477 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishal-gupta-v-director-i-g-f-r-i-jhansi-ors-47482
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-the injured-appellant was
21 years old at the time of accident and he
was final year student in engineering
college also he was earning Rs. 10,000 /-
per month by giving tuitions-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 3,29,000/- together
with interest @ 7% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-the appellant sustained 80%
disability due to amputation of his leg-
Annual loss would be Rs 67,200/ and By
applying the multiplier of 18 and including
other charges , the total loss of d is
assessed
Rs.
15,75,000/-Thus,
the
claimant
entitled
for
increase
of
compensation a sum of Rs. 15,75000/-
from Rs. 3,29000/- with modified interest
rate @ 7.5% per annum.(Paras 1 to 21)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Vishal Gupta Vs. Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors.
613
Rs. 10,770/- per month or Rs. 1,29,240/- p.a.
By applying the multiplier of 17, the total
loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.
21,97,080/-. We further award a sum of Rs.
15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.
40,000/- under the head of loss of
consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
We
accordingly
increase
the
compensation awarded to the claimantappellant
as
well
as
claimantperforma/respondent nos. 1 to 5 by the
Tribunal from Rs. 4,80,880/- to Rs.
22,67,080/-. The claimant-appellant as well
as claimant-performa/respondent nos. 1 to 5
shall further be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a.
on the increased amount of compensation
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual payment is made.

16. The appeal is allowed in part.

17. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the extent
indicated hereinabove.

18. The parties shall bear their own
costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A613
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No.1477 of 2008

Vishal Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.K. Ojha, Sri R.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Tiwari, Sri Ashok K. Jaiswal, Sri
Manoj Kumar Sharma

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-the injured-appellant was
21 years old at the time of accident and he
was final year student in engineering
college also he was earning Rs. 10,000 /-
per month by giving tuitions-Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 3,29,000/- together
with interest @ 7% per annum as
compensation but not granted future loss
of income-the appellant sustained 80%
disability due to amputation of his leg-
Annual loss would be Rs 67,200/ and By
applying the multiplier of 18 and including
other charges , the total loss of d is
assessed
Rs.
15,75,000/-Thus,
the
claimant
entitled
for
increase
of
compensation a sum of Rs. 15,75000/-
from Rs. 3,29000/- with modified interest
rate @ 7.5% per annum.(Paras 1 to 21)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand (2020) 0 AIJEL-SC
65725,

2. Philips Vs Western Rail. Co. (1874) 4 QBD 406

3. H.West & Son Ltd. Vs Shephard (1963) WLR
1359

4. Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar & ors. (2011) 1 SCC 343

5. K. Suresh Vs New India Assr. Co. Ltd. & ors.

6. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Lavkush & anr.
(2018) 1 T.A.C. 431

7. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr. (2014)
Lawsuit SC 371
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Sarla Verma & ors Vs D.T.C. & anr. (2009)
Lawsuit SC 613

9. Zakir Hussain Vs Shabir & ors. (2015) 2 AWC
1475 SC

10. Das Vs Pradymna Mohanty & anr. (2019)
ACJ 3019

11. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal &
ors. (2019) 2 T.A.C. 705 SC

12. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Ins. Co. Ltd.(2007) 2 GLH 291

13. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
FAFO No . 23 of 2001

14. Tej Kumari Sharma Vs Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Ins. Co. Ltd, FAFO No. 2871 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal, at the behest of the
injured-claimant, has been preferred against
the judgement and order dated 31.01.2008
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal')
in Claim Petition No.361 of 2004 (Vishal
Gupta Vs. Director IGFRI) awarding a sum
of Rs.3,29,000/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a
motor accident claim petition was filed by
claimant-Visual Gupta, who sustained
serious injuries in the accident in question.
The averments of petition are that on
23.04.2004, the claimant was going from
Chitra crossing towards B.K.D. crossing at
11:00 am on motorcycle No. UP 93F-7585.
As soon as he reached Rishabh hotel a bus
No. UP 90C-0414 hit his motorcycle from
behind due to rash and negligent driving of
the bus driver. The claimant was taken to
the hospital. His condition was serious.
Due to sustaining serious injuries in the
legs, his left leg was operated thrice and at
last, it was amputated from thigh. The
claimant became permanently disabled to
the
extent
of
80%.
He
remained
hospitalized for a long period and incurred
the expenditure of Rs.1,25,000/- towards
medical expenses. It is also alleged in
petition that claimant was student of final
year
engineering.
Due
to
sustaining
aforesaid injuries in accident, his future
became dark. Alongwith his studies, he was
earning Rs.10,000/- by doing job work in
different institutions.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company as well as
perused the record.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The
issue of negligence decided by the learned
Tribunal also is not in dispute. The
respondent-Insurance Company has not
challenged the liability imposed on it. The
only issue to be decided is, the quantum of
compensation awarded.

5.

Before
computation
of
compensation, it is worth mentioning that
the principles regarding the determination
of just compensation, contemplated under
the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred
to as ''MV Act') are well settled. Injuries
caused deprivation to the body, which
entitles the claimant to claim damages. It is
impossible to compensate human sufferings
and personal deprivation with money.
However, this is what the MV Act enjoins
upon the courts to do. The Court has to
make a judicious attempt to award damages
so that the claimant or the victim may be
compensated for the loss suffered by him.
The damages may vary according to the
gravity of the injuries sustained by the
claimant in an accident. On account of
injury,
the
claimant
may
suffer
1 All. Vishal Gupta Vs. Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors.
615
consequential loss such as loss of earnings
as well as future earnings, medical
expenditure, special diet and attendant
charges etc. Victim may suffer nonpecuniary damages also in the form of loss
of pleasure of life by particular limb of the
body. In this way, damages can be
pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary. The
Court/Tribunal should keep in mind that
compensation
awarded
must
be
just
compensation because the damages assess
for personal injuries should be substantial
to
compensate
the
injured
for
the
deprivation suffered by him throughout his
life.

6. In Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand
reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725, the
Apex
Court
has
quoted
pertinent
observations from a very old case Philips
Vs. Western Railway Company (1874)
4QBD 406 as under:

"You cannot put the plaintiff back
again into his original position, but you
must bring your reasonable common sense
to bear, and you must always recollect that
this is the only occasion on which
compensation can be given. The plaintiff
can never sue again for it. You have,
therefore, now to give him compensation
once and for all. He has done no wrong, he
has suffered a wrong at the hands of the
defendants and you must take care to give
him full fair compensation for that which
he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals
should always remember that the measures
of damages in all these cases "should be
such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say
that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure."

7. Hon'ble the Apex Court has
further quoted pertinent observations
from a very old case H. West & Son
Ltd. v. Shephard 1963 2 WLR 1359 as
under:

"Money may be awarded so that
something tangible may be procured to
replace something else of the like nature
which has been destroyed or lost. But
money cannot renew a physical frame
that has been battered and shattered. All
that Judges and courts can do is to award
sums which must be regarded as giving
reasonable compensation. In the process
there must be the endeavour to secure
some uniformity in the general method of
approach. By common assent awards
must be reasonable and must be assessed
with moderation. Furthermore, it is
eminently desirable that so far as
possible comparable injuries should be
compensated by comparable awards.

In the same case Lord Devlin
observed that the proper approach to the
problem was to adopt a test as to what
contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the
wrongdoer to "hold up his head among
his neighbours and say with their
approval that he has done the fair thing",
which should be kept in mind by the court
in determining compensation in personal
injury cases."

8. Section 168 of MV Act stipulates
that there should be grant of just
compensation. Thus, it becomes challenge
for a Court of law to determine just
compensation which should not be bonanza
for the claimant/victim and at the same
time it should not be too meagre. Hon'ble
the Apex Court in Rajkumar Vs Ajay
Kumar and others (2011) 1 SCC 343 has
laid
down
the
heads
under
which
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation is to be awarded for personal
injuries which is as follows:

"Pecuniary
damages
(Special
damages)

(i)Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing
food,
and
miscellaneous
expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other
gains) which the injured would have made
had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the
period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General
damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering
and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating the
evidence
of
the
claimant,
that
compensation will be granted under any of
the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating
to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent
disability,
future
medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects
of
marriage)
and
loss
of
expectation of life.

9. In K. Suresh v. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.8,
Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as follows
:

"2...There
cannot
be
actual
compensation for anguish of the heart or
for
mental
tribulations.
The
quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which
has to be in the realm of realistic
approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
the Act) stipulates that there should be
grant of just compensation. Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to
determine just compensation which is
neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance."

10. We have gone through the
Judgement in the case of National
Insurance
Company
Limited
Vs.
Lavkush and another, 2018 (1) T.A.C.
431, in which the concept of just
compensation is discussed elaborately.

10. Applying for the aforesaid
principles, we now proceed to assess the
compensation.

11. The injured-appellant was 21
years of age at the time of accident. He was
final year student in engineering college
and it is averred that alongwith his studies,
he was earning Rs.10,000/- by doing job
work in different institutions in the form of
giving tuition as argued by learned counsel
for the appellant. The Tribunal awarded
total compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- with
1 All. Vishal Gupta Vs. Director, I.G.F.R.I., Jhansi & Ors.
617
rate of interest of 7%. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that the
Tribunal assumed income of the appellant
as Rs.15,000/- per annum while appellant
was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and no
amount is awarded for future loss of
income. Learned counsel also submitted
that appellant was going to become
engineer within a year of accident and he
was having a bright future. But his whole
life is shattered due to the accident. Hence,
Tribunal has committed grave error in
assessing the income of the appellant.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
also submitted that appellant sustained 80%
disability due to amputation of his leg and
disability certificate of 80% is given by
Chief Medical Officer. Learned counsel
next submitted that Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses
while appellant has incurred Rs.1,50,000/-
in the said head. It is also submitted that
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/- for
pain, shock and suffering, which is very
meagre amount keeping in view the agony
of the appellant. It is also submitted that no
amount is awarded for future medicines,
special diet and attendant charges by the
Tribunal and 7% per annum interest is
awarded by the Tribunal, is also on lower
side. Hence, Tribunal has not awarded just
compensation. Learned counsel for the
appellant placed reliance on V. Mekala Vs.
M. Malathi and another, 2014 Lawsuit
(SC) 371, Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation
and
another, 2009 Lawsuit (SC) 613 and
Zakir Hussain Vs. Shabir and other 2015
(2) AWC 1475 (SC).

13. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Basudev Das Vs. Pradymna
Mohanty & Another reported in 2019 ACJ
3019, has held that even for amputation,
addition of future income has to be made and
therefore in case of appellant also future loss
will have to be added.

14. Per contra, it is submitted by
respondent-Insurance Company that the
quantum awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper. It is also submitted that regarding the
income of the appellant, there is no
documentary evidence on record, only oral
evidence is there, which was rightly
disbelieved by the Tribunal. There is no
illegality
or
error
in
awarding
the
compensation by the Tribunal and it does not
call for any interference by this Court as the
income, which is not proved, cannot be
granted.

15. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and perusing the record, it is crystal
clear, at the time of accident, that the
appellant
was
final
year
student
in
engineering college. He has deposed before
learned Tribunal that alongwith his studies,
he was doing part time job and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month, but there is no
documentary evidence in this regard. Hence,
we feel that his income can be considered to
be Rs.5,000/- per month. At the time of
accident, the appellant was 21 years old,
therefore, 40% of the income will be added as
future loss of income of the injured in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in Rajkumar
Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra) and Kajal Vs.
Jagdish Chandra (supra). The Chief Medical
Officer has issued permanent disability
certificate to the extent of 80%, which is not
disputed by Insurance Company. Hence, loss
of earning capacity namely, 80% has
considered by the Tribunal is maintained.

16. The amount awarded by the
Tribunal for medical expenses is also on
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lower side. Looking into the injuries
sustained by the appellant and alleged by
the appellant, we holds that appellant
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-
for
medical
expenses
instead
of
Rs.1,00,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal.

17. Tribunal has not awarded any sum
for future medicines, special diet and
attendant charges while in these heads he
would have necessarily incurred expenses
keeping in view the seriousness of injuries
sustained by him and amputation of left leg
from thigh. Hence, Tribunal has committed
an error in not awarding any sum under
aforementioned heads. Hence, Rs.25,000/-
shall be awarded for future medicines and
Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.10,000/-
for attendant charges shall also be awarded.

18. It is very pertinent to mention that
on account of injuries sustained in accident,
the left leg of the appellant was amputated
from thigh and it is evident from the record
that only 6 inch of length of the leg has left.
The appellant has deposed before learned
Tribunal that his left leg is artificial,
therefore, appellant shall be entitled to get
Rs.1,00,000/- for artificial limb because
artificial limb manufactured and fitted to
the injured, cannot long last. There is every
possibility for its replacement because first
artificial limb may not work whole life.
The appellant might incur replacement cost
also. The appellant shall get Rs.1,00,000/-
for pain, shock and suffering.

19. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellant is computed herein
below:

i. Income : Rs.5,000/-

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% = Rs.2,000/-

iii. Total Income : Rs.5000+
Rs.2,000/- = Rs.7,000/-

iv. Loss of earning capacity :
80% namely Rs.5,600/-

v. Annual loss : Rs.5,600/- x 12 =
Rs.67,200

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18

vii. Total loss Rs.67,200 x 18 =
Rs.12,09,600/-(which
is
rounded
of
Rs.12,10,000/-)

viii.
Medical
expenses
:
Rs.1,25,000/-

ix. Future medicines : Rs.25,000/-

x. Artificial limb : Rs.1,00,000/-

xi. Special diet : Rs.10,000/-

xii.
Attendant
charges
:
Rs.5,000/-

xiii. Amount under pain, shock
and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-

xiv.
Total
compensation
:
Rs.12,10,000 + Rs.1,25,000 + Rs.25,000 +
Rs.1,00,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs.5000 +
Rs.1,00,000= Rs.15,75,000/-

20. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the
latest decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under:

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
1 All. Smt. Usha & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
619
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

21. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 7% per annum but we are
fixing the rate of interest as 7.5% in the
light of the above judgment.

22. No other grounds were urged
when the matter was heard.

23. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
2007(2) GLH 291 and this High Court in
total amount of interest, accrued on the
principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are
entitled to deduct appropriate amount under
the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as
provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does
not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimants to withdraw the amount without
producing the certificate from the concerned
Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view
has been reiterated by this High Court in
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt.
Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and
another) and in First Appeal From Order
No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v.
Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing
the amount.

24. The records and proceedings be
sent back to the Tribunal for disbursement.
----------
(2022)01ILR A619
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No.2591 of 2016

Smt. Usha & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Alok Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramanuj Pandey

A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section
176-Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was working in a
factory and the age of the deceased was
40 years old -Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs. 3,08,000/- together with interest @
7% per annum as compensation but not
granted
future
loss
of
income-
the
deceased was survived by five dependents
- the deemed gross income would be Rs
5000/-per
month-By
applying
the
multiplier
of
12,
the
total
loss
of
dependency is assessed Rs. 8,28,800/-
Thus, the claimants entitled for increase of
compensation a sum of Rs. 8,28,800/--
from Rs. 3,08,000 with a modified rate of
interest @ 7.5% per annum.(Paras 1 to
22)

The appeal is partly allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.
Renu Singh & ors.,FAFO No.1818 of 2012

2. Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) 3 HL LR 330