Advocates:
['RAM SINGH', '', 'ZULFEQAR ALI', 'MOHD ASIM ZULFIQUAR', 'MOHD HASEEB UDDIN SIDDIQUI', '', 'RAHUL SAHAI']

Court No. - 5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2917 of 2017

Appellant :- Smt. Krishna Devi

Respondent :- Mohd. Imran And 2 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh,Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar,Zulfeqar Ali

Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd.Haseeb Uddin Siddiqui

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Sri Zulfeqar Ali, for the appellant and Sri Aditya Singh

Parihar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate

for respondent no. 3, i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company

Limited, Lucknow.

This is a claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation as

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad

through its judgment and award dated 10.5.2017 passed in

Motor Accident Compensation Case No. 662 of 2015 (Smt.

Krishna Devi vs. Mohd. Imran & Ors).

The case of the claimant - appellant is that her son Manish

Dubey died due to injuries caused in an accident that took place

in the night of 28/29.4.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of

a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. U.P. 70 C.V. / 1203.

The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- alleging

that the deceased - Manish Dubey worked as a Painter and

earned Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of his death.

The vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 3, i.e., Reliance

General Insurance Company Limited. The respondent no. 1 is

the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no. 2 is the

driver of the offending vehicle.

The Tribunal after recording a finding that Manish Dubey (the

deceased) was injured in the accident which took place due to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and,

consequently, died due to the injuries suffered in the accident

and also after holding that the vehicle was insured with

respondent no. 3 and the driver of the offending vehicle had a

valid driving licence at the time of accident, awarded a

compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- to the claimant. The appeal has

been filed claiming higher compensation than that awarded by

the Tribunal.

As no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the

respondents in the present case, therefore, the Court is not

examining the findings of the Tribunal on Issues regarding

factum of accident and the liability of the Insurance Company

to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle for the

compensation payable to the claimant.

The Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 20 years at the

time of accident. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not

been able to prove that the deceased, at the time of accident,

earned Rs.10,000/- per month and, therefore, computed

compensation on the notional income of the deceased taking it

to be Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal added 50% as future

prospects in the notional income of the deceased and after

applying a multiplier of 17 and after deducting 50% as personal

expenses of the deceased, awarded a compensation of

Rs.4,59,000/- as pecuniary damages to the claimant. The

Tribunal further awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- for loss of

estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss

of love and affection. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total

compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- with a simple interest at the rate

of 7% per annum on the compensation amount.

For reasons to be stated subsequently, the claimant is entitled

for a higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal.

The findings of the Tribunal that the deceased was 20 years old

at the time of accident has not been challenged by either of the

parties, therefore, compensation has to be calculated taking the

deceased to be 20 years old at the time of accident.

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Resha Devi &

Others (2017) 3 ADJ 685, a Division Bench of this Court held

that the notional income of an unskilled labour should not be

taken to be less than Rs.200/- per day while determining the

multiplicand. The case of the claimant was that the dec