SUNITA DAS AND OTHERSversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2641 of 2005

Sunity Das And Others
                                                        .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Another
                                                       .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : A.L. Jaiswal, Neerja Singh, Sharve
                                  Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Pradeep Kumar Sinha

Court No. - 54
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Sharve Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Neerja Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Achintya Kumar
holding brie of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1.

2. This appeal, at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation, challenges the judgment and award dated 11.08.2005
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter
referred to as the "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No.549 of 2002 (Sunity Das &
Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr.), whereby a sum of Rs.1,27,000/- has
been awarded to the claimants. The grievance of the appellant is that
inadequate compensation has been awarded under various admissible
heads and the determination made by the Tribunal is not in conformity
with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing
assessment of compensation in motor accident cases.

3. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. The finding of
negligence recorded by the Tribunal has also not been challenged. The
only issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. The accident took place on 16.11.2001. The deceased, Umapad Das,
who was retired railway personnel, was about 65 years of age at the time
of the accident and was stated to be doing private job earning Rs.3000/-
per month apart from receiving pension of Rs.3000/- per month. The
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum as
                                                       FAFO No. 2641 of 2005
                               2


per notional income, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living
expenses, applied the multiplier of 5, Rs.5000/- towards loss of
consortium, and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. The tribunal
consequently awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,27,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred
in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum,
whereas it ought to have been assessed at Rs.6000/- per month as the
deceased was receiving pension of Rs.3000/- per month and also earning
Rs.3000/- per month from his private job. It was further submitted that the
Tribunal, even after assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a
very lower side, ignored to add future prospects towards the annual
income of the deceased. He further contended that deceased after
suffering injuries as a result of accident remained admitted in a hospital,
however, no compensation towards medical expenses was awarded. It
was contended that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is
on the lower side and deserves enhancement in the light of the decisions
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017
LawSuit (SC) 1093; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram,
2018 (4) TAC 345 (SC); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila
Shukla, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822. Therefore, the award passed by the
Tribunal ignoring the guidelines for determining the compensation is not
proper and reassessment and recalculation is necessitated for
compensating the claimants adequately.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
submitted that the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper, as
no documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased was
produced. It was contended that no addition towards future prospects
could be made, as the accident occurred prior to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
and Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It was also submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and
funeral expense, is proper and hence no interference is required.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal
                                                          FAFO No. 2641 of 2005
                              3


regarding determination of income of the deceased does not suffer from
any perversity or illegality.

8. It was contended by appellants that income of Rs.3000/-, which was
receiving as a pension by the deceased, was not considered by the
Tribunal. However, the findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly mention
that argument before it from the claimants' counsel was that they are
confining their prayer for compensation on basis of the income derived by
the deceased through his private job. Even a salary certificate from the
concerned Organisation namely M/s Nitin Printers was produced before
the Tribunal and same, despite being objected by the Insurance Company,
was considered for determining the income of the deceased. Therefore,
the appellants at this stage cannot now claim to consider the income
derived by the deceased from his pension.

9. So far as the compensation in respect of the medical expenses is
concerned, it appears from the finding recorded by the Tribunal that
evidences in support of those expenses by means of submitting medical
bills etc. were not submitted before the Tribunal.

10. Insofar as the other parameters applied by the Tribunal, considering
the prevalent law, i.e., Second Schedule of Section 163-A of Motor
Vehicles Act, are concerned, the same do not require interference, except
the head of future prospects, under which no compensation has been
awarded. Even prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Courts
had been awarding compensation towards future prospects, though by
adopting different methods of computation. It has been consistently laid
down that addition of future prospects towards income is integral part of
compensation in death cases.

11. From the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that
compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires re-computation. Upon re-
computation of compensation, the following calculation would arise:-


Particulars                                      Amount (Rs.)



Monthly income                                   3000/-
                                                                  FAFO No. 2641 of 2005
                                          4



Annual income                                            36,000/-



Addition towards future prospects @ 20%                  7200/-



Total annual income                                      43,200/-



Deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/3rd)   14,400/-



Loss of dependency                                       28,800/-



Multiplier of 5                                          1,44,000/-



Loss of spousal consortium                               5000/-



Funeral expenses                                         2000/-



Total Compensation                                       1,51,000/-



12. In view of the above, appellants/claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.1,51,000/- along with rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal, which shall be indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.

14. It is further directed that if any amount has already been paid by the
Insurance Company pursuant to the award of the learned Tribunal, the
same shall be adjusted towards the total amount payable under this
judgment. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of this order; it shall further be released by the
learned Tribunal within four weeks after the deposit of the said amount in
favour of the claimants and be disbursed in same proportion as has been
held by learned Tribunal in its impugned award.

(i) The claimants are hereby directed to provide their savings bank
                                                                                          FAFO No. 2641 of 2005
                                                                  5


                                    account details, having R.T.G.S. facility, within four weeks from today to
                                    the learned Tribunal.

                                    (ii) The said amount shall be transferred to the savings bank accounts of
                                    the claimants by way of passing a judicial order, so that the differential
                                    amount may be transferred directly from the account of the Tribunal to
                                    the accounts of the claimants, after completing the necessary formalities,
                                    if any.



                                                                                          (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    September 7, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad