The Court upheld the application of statutory provisions to ensure just compensation for the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shirish Srivastava, leaned Advocate holding brief of Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

2. The challenge to the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar is confined to the issue of quantum of compensation, i.e. the alleged illegality in the computation made by the Tribunal. The issue no. 5 in the decision of the Tribunal under challenge is on the quantum of compensation.

3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are two folds: the first is that the Tribunal had wrongly made deduction to the extent of 1/4th for personal expenses of deceased in ignorance of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 (In short as “the Rules, 2011) which provides in Rule 220-A (3) that for the purposes of calculation of number of family members as per Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said sub-rule (2), i.e. for the deduction towards personal and living expenses of a married person (deceased), a minor dependent will be counted as half.

The contention is that as the deceased was survived by two minor children apart from his wife, total number of dependent family members would be two (2). The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have made deduction of 1/3rd in the said category.

4. To deal with this submission, suffice it to note that the dependent family members of deceased as narrated in the claim petition and noted by the Tribunal are five (5); wife, two minor children, mother and father of the deceased. A categorical statement has been made in the claim petition that the claimant wife, her children and parents of deceased were wholly dependent upon him. Nothing contrary could be brought before us. Considering the number of dependent family members being five, we find that the Tribunal had correctly applied the ratio given in Rule 220-A(2)(ii) of the Rules, 2011.

Even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company regarding application of sub rule (2)(iii) are accepted in this regard, counting minor dependents as half, the total number of dependent family members would be four (4). In both the eventuality, the dependent family members being between four(4) to six(6) in number, the deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of deceased cannot be said to be unjust or in contravention of Rule 220-A(2)(ii) and (iii).

The first ground of challenge is, therefore, turned down.

5. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the multiplier chosen by the Tribunal.

The contention is that the deceased was admittedly more than 31 years of age on the date of the accident. As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121, the multiplier in the table in paragraph 40' was to be applied as against the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Column (4) of the table given in Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 16 had to be applied for the deceased his age being in the bracket of 31 to 35 years. The Tribunal has erred in choosing the multiplier of 17 from the table in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short as “the Motor Vehicles Act”).

6. To contradict this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla and others, Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021, wherein the decision of this Court in a First Appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was challenged on the ground that Rule 3(iii) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is contrary to the conclusions drawn by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680.

The challenge in the said a