Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita Yadav and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order Nos. 1327, 1925 of 2015, 1824 of 2016
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Motor Accident Claim - Compensation - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - [CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, COMPENSATION, FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER, CONVENTIONAL HEADS] - The court affirmed the finding of the learned tribunal that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, rejecting the claim of contributory negligence. The court determined the income of the deceased and future prospects in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. The court also modified the calculation of conventional heads based on the precedent set in Pranay Sethi. The interest and manner of payment decided by the learned tribunal were upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a case where the deceased died in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a truck. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, while the Insurance Company contested the quantum of compensation as excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the finding of the learned tribunal that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, rejecting the claim of contributory negligence. The court determined the income of the deceased and future prospects in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. The court also modified the calculation of conventional heads based on the precedent set in Pranay Sethi. The interest and manner of payment decided by the learned tribunal were upheld. The appeals were partly allowed and dismissed accordingly.
Issues: Contributory negligence, Lawful computation of compensation, Income determination, Future prospects calculation, Conventional heads calculation, Interest and manner of payment
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the finding of the learned tribunal that the accident was solely caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, rejecting the claim of contributory negligence. The court determined the income of the deceased and future prospects in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. The court also modified the calculation of conventional heads based on the precedent set in Pranay Sethi. The interest and manner of payment decided by the learned tribunal were upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company viz. First Appeal From Order No. 1824 of 2016 is dismissed. The appeal filed by Insurance Company and the claimants viz. First Appeal From Order No. 1327 of 2015 and First Appeal From Order No. 1925 of 2015 are partly allowed to the extent set out in the judgment. The amount of compensation which the claimants have been awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of three months before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the learned tribunal shall release the amount to the claimants without delay. The amount already disbursed to the claimants (if any) shall be adjusted.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY BHANOT, J.
(I) INTRODUCTION
1. The two appeals, namely FAFO No. 1327 of 2015 and FAFO No. 1925 of 2015 arise out of an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as the “learned tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 816 of 2013 dated 24.03.2015. The appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants who are dependants of the deceased respectively.
2. The appeal, namely FAFO No. 1824 of 2016 arise out of an award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 948 of 2013 dated 17.03.2016 by partly allowing the claim of the injured-claimant. The instant appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant.
3. The above said three appeals arise out of the same accident and are being decided by a common judgment.
(II) Case of the claimants and respondents before the learned tribunal:
4. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased Charan Singh died in an accident on 12.06.2013 which was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending truck bearing Registration No. UP-70-J-9831. On the fateful day deceased Charan Singh was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-73-D-0335 with Ghanshyam Singh riding pillion. Ghanshyam Singh suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. The offending vehicle was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death.
(III) Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal
5. The learned tribunal in the impugned award dated 24.03.2015 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation which is depicted in tabulated form hereunder:
| S. No. | Heads | Amount Awarded by the tribunal |
| 1. | Monthly Income (A) | 4,000/- |
| 2. | Annual Income (B) (Ax12=B) | 48,000/- |
| 3. | Future Prospects (C) 50% | (Rs. 24,000/-) 48,000 + 24,000 = 72,000/- |
| 4. | Deduction towards personal expenses (D) | (1/3 of B) 1/3 of 24,000/- = 72,000 - 24000/- = 48,000/- |
| 5. | Annual Loss of dependancy (E) (B-D = E) | 48,000 |
| 6. | Multiplier (F) | 18 |
| 7. | Total loss of dependancy (ExF) | 48000 x 18 = 8,64,000/- |
| 8. | Conventional Heads |
|
| (a) Loss of consortium | 9500/- | |
| (b) loss of Estate | ||
| (c) Funeral Expenses | ||
| 9. | Total compensation | 8,64,000 + 9500 = 8,73,500/- |
| 10. | Interest | 7% |
6. The compensation awarded to the injured by learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2016 is depicted in tabulated form hereunder:
| S. No. | Heads | Amount Awarded by the tribunal |
| 1. | Medical expenses | 1,09,925.19/- |
| 2. | Special diet | 6,000/- |
| 3. | Grievous injuries | 5,000/- |
| 4. | Loss of income | 6,000/- |
| 5. | Total compensation | 1,09,925.19 + 6000 + 5000 + 6000 = 1,26,925/- |
| 6. | Interest | 7% |
7. The appeals filed by the claimants and the injured respectively seek enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company in appeals has assailed the quantum of compensation as being excessive.
(IV) Submissions of learned counsels for the parties:
8. Shri Ujwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in FAFO No. 1327 of 2015 submits that though many grounds have been pleaded in the memo of appeal, only three grounds are being pressed. Firstly, the tribunal erred in law by fixing the entire liability on the appellant-insurance company though it was a case of contributory negligence. Secondly, the income of the deceased was not established. Thirdly, an incorrect multiplier was applied to the facts of the case.
9. Ms. Aruna Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in FAF
The court applied the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 to determine the compensation, including income, future prospects, and conventional heads, and upheld the interest and manner of payment....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper calculation of compensation under various heads, including salary, future prospects, application of multiplier, conventional heads, and ....
The quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in a motor accident claim petition is to be determined by considering various factors, including future prospects, personal expenses of the deceas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, including the assessment of contributory negligence, computation of various heads of co....
Rule 220A-3(i) of Rules is future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in actual salary or minimum wages of deceased.
Point of Law : In absence of any governing principle available in statutory regime, it was only in form of an indication - If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or grea....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should consider the notional income of the deceased, future prospects, an....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
