Court No. - 5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1734 of 2020

Appellant :- Siyarani And 4 Others

Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

And 2 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Sinha,Deepali

Srivastava Sinha

Counsel for Respondent :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan,Sunil Kumar

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, Sri Aijaz

Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Sunil

Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants

for enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted

that accident had taken place on 24.02.2017 and the deceased

was engaged in dairy business and doing farming also and it is

common knowledge that in the year 2017, the income from the

dairy business was not less than Rs.200/- per day, and therefore,

considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of

Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram

alias Chuhru Ram and others 2018 (18) SCC 130, the Tribunal

should have taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-

per month instead of Rs.4500/- for computing the

compensation. It is further submitted that considering the age of

the deceased, the claimants/appellants are also entitled to 40%

towards future prospect in place of 25% in view of the

judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16)

SCC 680. It is further contended that there were five

dependants upon the deceased, therefore, considering the

judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and

others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6)

SCC 121, Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards

personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. Lastly, it is

submitted that a very meagre amount of Rs.35,000/- has been

awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of

consortium as well as pain and suffering whereas,

claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards the

aforesaid heads in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper as

there was no proof of income of the deceased and hence, the

same does not call for interference by this Court in the appeal.

Thus, the submission is that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal in the instant case is just and adequate and based on

proper appreciation of facts.

5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and

perused the record.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance

Company (supra) has held the notional income to be Rs.6,000/-

per month and thus, accepting the submission of learned

counsel for the claimants/appellants in view of the judgement of

Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance

Company (supra), it is provided that the income of the

deceased should be taken to be Rs.6,000/- per month in place of

Rs.4500/- for the purpose of computation of compensation. The

submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in

respect of grant of future prospect has got force in view of the

judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)

and thus, following the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court,

claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect

in place of 25% considering the age of the deceased. It is also

established on record that there were five dependants upon the

deceased, therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in

the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 1/4th should have been

deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the

deceased and further the non-pecuniary damages awarded by

the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.70,000/- in

view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay