Smt. Saroj and another v. Suresh Kumar and another)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, HDFC, IRGO General Insurance Company Ltd. and perused the record.

2. Instant First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Faizabad, in Claim Petition No.314 of 2014 (Smt. Saroj and another versus Suresh Kumar and another).

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are aggrieved only in respect of the quantum of compensation, as other findings made by the learned Tribunal, except the income of the deceased, are not assailed in the present appeal. He next submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,13,000/- as death claim compensation to the appellant, who are parents of the deceased along with 7.5% annual simple interest, on premise that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-, as his income was not duly proved by the evidence laid by the claimants. It is stated in claim petition that the deceased was working as painter and the appellant no.1 has testified that the deceased was a skilled painter, who used to perform painting work outside District Faizabad and Rs.10,000 paid to the family for routine expenses, his monthly earning 2 FAFO No. 11 of 2016 was around Rs.12,000/-.

4. P.W.-2 has also stated that in cross-examination undertaken by the insurance company that he had seen the deceased working as a painter at the residence of Shri Alok Tiwari, resident of Shahganj. Nevertheless, the learned Tribunal has assessed his notional income only Rs.3000/- per month in view of absence of any documentary evidence in support of income of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also applied multiplier of 16 instead of 18, which is applicable in a case where the deceased was within the age group of 15 to 20 years as Hon'ble the Supreme Court has fixed multiplier of 18 in Smt. Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has placed reliance on judgment Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) in respect of ascertainment of multiplier. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error while applying multiplier of 16 instead of 18, as laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case.

6. Learned counsel has also submitted that in accordance with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and others (supra), Rs.17,000/- should be awarded towards conventional head. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal needs to be modified in the manner as submitted above.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on an AFR judgment of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 71 of 2015, dated 10.11.2021, wherein this Court has fixed notional income of deceased as Rs 5,000/- per month, and other expenses towards the conventional head were given by this Court in terms of Pranay Sethi and others (supra). The accident occurred in that case also in the year 2014, and as in the present case where the accident occurred on 20.10.2014 wherein the deceased suffered fatal injuries.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the age of the deceased was not proved and it was stated to be 19 years on the 3 FAFO No. 11 of 2016 basis of estimation. Therefore, there is no illegality in fixing multiplier of 16 in the award of the learned Tribunal. He also submitted that as the claimants failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of the income of the deceased, except the vision of his family members. The learned Tribunal has rightly fixed notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month.

9. Considering the date of the accident in present case i.e. 20.10.2014, the monthly income of the deceased ascertained in claim petition, as also observation of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments, this court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating death claim compensation should be ascertained as Rs.5,500/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted half of his income while calculating the compensation.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled the compensation which should be calculated in according to following calculation chart. Calculation Chart Sl. No.

2. Heads Compensation awarded Income Rs.5,500/- P.M. X 12 Rs.66,000/- P.A. Deduction towards personal expenses in case of Bachelor 50%

3. Dependency Rs.33,000/- P.A.

5. Multiplier as per age of the deceased i.e. 19 years Future Prospect at 40% of dependency 18 Rs.13,200/-

6. Total Income (Annual) Rs.46,200/-

7. Compensation Total=46,200 x 18 Rs.8,31,600/-

8. Loss of Estate

9. Loss of Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4 FAFO No. 11 of 2016

10. Loss of filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,01,600/-

10. It is made clear that this Court has modified the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal with respect to the amount by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while awarding the amount in terms of the judgment shall adjust the amount, if any, already paid / provided to the appellant. The quantum of compensation provided by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as calculated above.

11. The appeal is disposed of finally in above terms.

12. Let records be returned to the concerned along with the copy of this judgment for necessary compliance

13. It is also clarified that the interest awarded in terms of dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and others (supra), the rate of interest from 7.5% is reduced to some extent from 7.5% to 7% and accordingly, the interest will be calculated on compensation calculated as aforesaid. November 20, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, HDFC, IRGO General Insurance Company Ltd. and perused the record.

2. Instant First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Faizabad, in Claim Petition No.314 of 2014 (Smt. Saroj and another versus Suresh Kumar and another).

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are aggrieved only in respect of the quantum of compensation, as other findings made by the learned Tribunal, except the income of the deceased, are not assailed in the present appeal. He next submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,13,000/- as death claim compensation to the appellant, who are parents of the deceased along with 7.5% annual simple interest, on premise that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-, as his income was not duly proved by the evidence laid by the claimants. It is stated in claim petition that the deceased was working as painter and the appellant no.1 has testified that the deceased was a skilled painter, who used to perform painting work outside District Faizabad and Rs.10,000 paid to the family for routine expenses, his monthly earning 2 FAFO No. 11 of 2016 was around Rs.12,000/-.

4. P.W.-2 has also stated that in cross-examination undertaken by the insurance company that he had seen the deceased working as a painter at the residence of Shri Alok Tiwari, resident of Shahganj. Nevertheless, the learned Tribunal has assessed his notional income only Rs.3000/- per month in view of absence of any documentary evidence in support of income of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also applied multiplier of 16 instead of 18, which is applicable in a case where the deceased was within the age group of 15 to 20 years as Hon'ble the Supreme Court has fixed multiplier of 18 in Smt. Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has placed reliance on judgment Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) in respect of ascertainment of multiplier. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error while applying multiplier of 16 instead of 18, as laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case.

6. Learned counsel has also submitted that in accordance with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and others (supra), Rs.17,000/- should be awarded towards conventional head. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal needs to be modified in the manner as submitted above.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on an AFR judgment of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 71 of 2015, dated 10.11.2021, wherein this Court has fixed notional income of deceased as Rs 5,000/- per month, and other expenses towards the conventional head were given by this Court in terms of Pranay Sethi and others (supra). The accident occurred in that case also in the year 2014, and as in the present case where the accident occurred on 20.10.2014 wherein the deceased suffered fatal injuries.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the age of the deceased was not proved and it was stated to be 19 years on the 3 FAFO No. 11 of 2016 basis of estimation. Therefore, there is no illegality in fixing multiplier of 16 in the award of the learned Tribunal. He also submitted that as the claimants failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of the income of the deceased, except the vision of his family members. The learned Tribunal has rightly fixed notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month.

9. Considering the date of the accident in present case i.e. 20.10.2014, the monthly income of the deceased ascertained in claim petition, as also observation of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments, this court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating death claim compensation should be ascertained as Rs.5,500/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted half of his income while calculating the compensation.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled the compensation which should be calculated in according to following calculation chart. Calculation Chart Sl. No.

2. Heads Compensation awarded Income Rs.5,500/- P.M. X 12 Rs.66,000/- P.A. Deduction towards personal expenses in case of Bachelor 50%

3. Dependency Rs.33,000/- P.A.

5. Multiplier as per age of the deceased i.e. 19 years Future Prospect at 40% of dependency 18 Rs.13,200/-

6. Total Income (Annual) Rs.46,200/-

7. Compensation Total=46,200 x 18 Rs.8,31,600/-

8. Loss of Estate

9. Loss of Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4 FAFO No. 11 of 2016

10. Loss of filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,01,600/-

10. It is made clear that this Court has modified the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal with respect to the amount by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while awarding the amount in terms of the judgment shall adjust the amount, if any, already paid / provided to the appellant. The quantum of compensation provided by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as calculated above.

11. The appeal is disposed of finally in above terms.

12. Let records be returned to the concerned along with the copy of this judgment for necessary compliance

13. It is also clarified that the interest awarded in terms of dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and others (supra), the rate of interest from 7.5% is reduced to some extent from 7.5% to 7% and accordingly, the interest will be calculated on compensation calculated as aforesaid. November 20, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench