Back
2018 Supreme(All) 423
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
Versus
VIJAY SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(First Appeal From Order Nos. 3484 of 2012, 1199 of 2016, 1820 of 2002 and 4230 of 2017, decided on 19th January, 2018)
Advocate Appeared:
Vidya Kant Shukla, Vishal Agarwal, A.K. Gautam, Ajit Kumar, Arvind Srivastava and Rahul Sahai for the Appellants; Pramod Kumar, Rajeev Ojha, Smt. Archana Singh, Ajay Singh, Ramesh Singh and Ali Akbar Ansari for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 173, 166 and 168—Principles of Assessment—Choice of multiplier—Claimants entitled to benefit of multiplier with reference to age of deceased. [Para 55]
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order XLI, Rule 33—Appeal—Cross appeal—Mode of disposal—Enhancement sought being really in nature of correction of award and not involving a fresh finding of fact or even reappraisal of evidence it may not be resisted because a cross-appeal may not have been filed—Enhancement proposed does not result in an exorbitant increase in compensation awarded but is only in nature of correction in computation of amount of compensation. [Paras 67 to 71]
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 173, 166 and 168—Award—Fatal accident case—Deceased aged about 16 years—Notional income taken at Rs. 36,000 p.a.—50% deducted for personal expenses of deceased—Multiplier of 18 applied—Loss of dependency assessed at Rs. 3,24,000—Rs. 12,000 for loss of estate—And Rs. 12,000 for funeral expenses also allowed—Impugned amount of compensation enhanced upto Rs. 3,48,000 from Rs. 1,22,000. [Paras 74 and 75]
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 173, 166 and 168—Award—Fatal accident case—Deceased aged about 27 years—Monthly income assessed at Rs. 3,000—40% added towards future prospects—50% deducted for personal expenses of deceased—Choice of multiplier of 17—Loss of income assessed at Rs. 4,28,000—Impugned amount of compensation enhanced upto Rs. 4,48,000 from Rs. 2,68,500—Alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. [Para 76]
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 173, 166 and 168—Award—Fatal accident case—Deceased aged about 23 years—Monthly income taken at Rs. 5,000—40% added for future prospects—Choice of multiplier of 18—Loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,56,000—Rs. 15,000 allowed for loss of love and funeral expenses—Impugned amount of compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,35,000 to Rs. 7,71,000—Alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. [Para 77]
(F) Award—Fatal accident case—Deceased aged about 20 years—Annual income assessed at Rs. 45,000—40% added towards future prospects—Choice of multiplier of 18—Loss of dependency assessed at Rs. 5,67,000—Rs. 12,000 each added for loss of estate and funeral expenses—Directions issued. [Paras 78 to 81]
Result: Appeals Allowed.
Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—These four appeals involve common questions as to: correct multiplier to be applied to the multiplicand; claim for future prospects (in cases involving death of a bachelor employed on fixed salary etc.) to determine the just, proper, reasonable and fair amount of compensation to be paid to the parent claimants, upon death of a bachelor caused in an accident involving a motor vehicle. Three of the appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by various Motor Accident Claims Tribunals while one appeal has been filed by the insurance company contending the compensation awarded is excessive.
2. While, the claimants who are appellants in three appeals and respondents in one appeal (hereinafter referred to as the claimant), contend the multiplier should have been applied with reference to the age of the deceased (a bachelor), the insurance companies who are the respondents in three appeals and appellant in one appeal (hereinafter referred to as insurer), contend, the deceased, in each appeal being a bachelor and the claimants being parents of the deceased, the multiplier should have been applied with reference to the age of the claimants and not the deceased. Also, while the claimants claim computation of loss of income by giving benefit of future prospects, the insurers resist that claim on the ground that the deceased were only earning fixed income and therefore the claimants were not entitled to benefit of future prospects. Also, according to the claimants the amount awarded towards non-pecuniary loss is too less while according to the insurers reasonable amount has been awarded.
3. Common facts, as found by the different Tribunals relevant to computation of the multiplier, that form the subject-matter of submissions advanced on either side, are noted below in the chart:
FAFO No.
Age (Deceased)
Multiplier (Deceased’s Age)
Age of Claimant
Multiplier (Claimants Age)
Annual Loss of Dependency
Compensation
Compensation
Difference
3484/2012
16
18
40-39
16
7,500/-
1,35,000
1,20,000
15,000
1199/2016
27
17
50-45
11
24,000/-
4,08,000
2,64,000
1,44,000
1820/2002
23
18
50-55
11
12,000/-
2,16,000
1,32,000
84,000
4230/2017
20
18
48-44
13
30,000/-
5,40,000
3,90,000
1,50,000
FAFO No. 3484 of 2012:
4. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement. The motor accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on 22.7.2010 wherein Kapil Singh aged about 16 years died. It has been held by the Tribunal that the deceased Kapil Singh was waiting for a passenger vehicle on a road side, when a truck bearing registration No. UP-78 BT- 3985, being driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the deceased causing serious injuries resulting in his death.
5. In respect of his earning, it was disclosed that the deceased was working as a labourer engaged to load and unload goods on trucks and that at the time of the accident, he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Tribunal assumed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- on notional basis. It made a deduction therefrom of Rs. 7,500/- towards personal expenses. Thereafter, considering the age of the claimant it applied a multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- by way of compensation towards loss of dependency. It also awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal made an award of total compensation of Rs. 1,22,000/-.
6. Heard Sri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Rahul Sahai with Sri Anant Parihar, learned counsel for the insurer.
7. The appellants contend that they are entitled to higher compensation by application of a higher multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased and that the notional income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Further allowance should h
