Mohd. Yameen And Ors. vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the award dated 19.08.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No.185 of 2014, whereby, in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- along with 7% interest per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award for the purposes of enhancement has submitted that the deceased was 60 years of age and the same was duly substantiated by filing an education certificate and in such circumstances, the multiplier as applicable would be that of 9 whereas the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 5.

4. It is further urged that it was specifically stated that the deceased was working at a Petrol Pump and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the same was not accepted by the Tribunal despite the fact that an income certificate issued by the owner of the Petrol Pump was filed. The Tribunal erred in ignoring the income certificate and taken notional income of Rs.3,000/- which is absolutely and patently arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that neither the future prospects have been noticed nor adequate compensation under the conventional heads have been granted, as such, the award stands vitiated and the appellant deserves a higher compensation taking note of the settled legal principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 2 FAFO No. 916 of 2015 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as the decision of the Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC OnLine SC

1546. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Shri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has urged that the compensation to be granted should be just and fair and it is not to be treated as a bounty. It is urged that in the given circumstances and the facts of the case, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation and it does not require any interference.

7. It is further urged by Shri Zafar Aziz that the claimant though filed an income certificate, but the same was not proved in accordance with law and in the given circumstances, the Tribunal had no option but to take the notional income which has been appropriately noticed and in the overall situation, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- has been granted relating to an accident which occurred in the year 2014, hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

9. At the outset, it may be noticed that the respondents No.1 and 2 did not come forward to contest the proceedings despite the service being completed as indicated in the service report dated 13.02.2017 indicating the sufficient service on the respondents.

10. The challenge has been made by the claimant only to the quantum and it is only the Insurance Company which has contested this appeal, hence, in the aforesaid backdrop in absence of any cross appeal/cross objections by the respondents, the findings returned by the Tribunal relating to the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, findings relating to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the findings relating to the offending vehicle being insured by the insurance company and its driver having a valid licence, all are affirmed as there is no challenge to it.

11. Now, the only issue that needs to be considers is the fact as to whether the award made by the Tribunal (only in context of its quantum) is just and fair or not. In this regard, if the material on record is seen, it would 3 FAFO No. 916 of 2015 reveal that the claimant had filed an education certificate of the deceased which indicate that his date of birth 05.09.1954. Even though in the post- mortem report, the deceased was shown to be around 65 years of age but in the High School Certificate, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 05.09.1954, hence, the same shall be acceptable and in this context the age of the deceased was 60 years on the date of the accident. Since on the date of the accident, noticing the date of birth of the deceased as per his educational certificate, he would not have completed 60 years, hence, the age would be treated to be 60 upon which the multiplier applicable would be that of 9 as noticed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and approved by a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 5 and to that extent, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has sufficient substance.

12. As far as the issue raised by the appellant regarding the income of the deceased is concerned, it was specifically pleaded that the deceased was working as a Manager at M/s. Ladeti Petrol Pump and was paid a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The said document has been brought on record, however, what is relevant to note is the fact that the proprietor of the said Petrol Pump did not enter into the witness-box to establish and prove the said income certificate.

13. Be that as it may, even if at all, the said income certificate was not proved, yet the fact remains that the Tribunal has taken a notional income of Rs.3,000/- which is very meager.

14. In the facts and circumstances where the claimant had given a statement regarding income of the deceased being Rs.15,000/- which was supported by an income certificate, but even though if not proved in accordance with law yet the fact remains that there was no contrary evidence.

15. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken the minimum income of Rs.6,000/- per month as the accident had occurred in the year 2014 and at the given time apparently the notional income could not be taken to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, to that extent, the income has also not been appropriately assessed. The claimant being the widow of the deceased was a sole heir and dependent on the deceased, hence, the 4 FAFO No. 916 of 2015 appellant ought to have been granted an appropriate compensation towards conventional heads as well as future prospect also should have been taken into consideration, which has not been noticed.

16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair. Accordingly, this Court re- determines the compensation as under:- Income Add: Future Prospect @ 15% of Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- P.M. Rs.900/- P.M. Net Income: Income After deduction of 50% (Rs.6900 divided by 2) Rs.3,450/- P.M. Age Multiplier 60 years 9 Thus, compensation payable Rs.3450x12x9 Rs.3,72,600/- Conventional Head: (i) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-; (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- (iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs.15,000/- Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Payable Rs.4,42,600/-

17. Thus, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled for a total sum as determined hereinabove of Rs.4,42,600/- with 7% interest per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Any amount already paid to the appellant shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum and the remaining shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellant within a period of sixty days.

18. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 19.08.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No.185 of 2014 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The record of the Tribunal concerned shall be returned forthwith. September 2, 2025/Rakesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the award dated 19.08.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No.185 of 2014, whereby, in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- along with 7% interest per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award for the purposes of enhancement has submitted that the deceased was 60 years of age and the same was duly substantiated by filing an education certificate and in such circumstances, the multiplier as applicable would be that of 9 whereas the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 5.

4. It is further urged that it was specifically stated that the deceased was working at a Petrol Pump and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the same was not accepted by the Tribunal despite the fact that an income certificate issued by the owner of the Petrol Pump was filed. The Tribunal erred in ignoring the income certificate and taken notional income of Rs.3,000/- which is absolutely and patently arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that neither the future prospects have been noticed nor adequate compensation under the conventional heads have been granted, as such, the award stands vitiated and the appellant deserves a higher compensation taking note of the settled legal principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 2 FAFO No. 916 of 2015 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as the decision of the Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC OnLine SC

1546. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Shri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has urged that the compensation to be granted should be just and fair and it is not to be treated as a bounty. It is urged that in the given circumstances and the facts of the case, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation and it does not require any interference.

7. It is further urged by Shri Zafar Aziz that the claimant though filed an income certificate, but the same was not proved in accordance with law and in the given circumstances, the Tribunal had no option but to take the notional income which has been appropriately noticed and in the overall situation, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- has been granted relating to an accident which occurred in the year 2014, hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

9. At the outset, it may be noticed that the respondents No.1 and 2 did not come forward to contest the proceedings despite the service being completed as indicated in the service report dated 13.02.2017 indicating the sufficient service on the respondents.

10. The challenge has been made by the claimant only to the quantum and it is only the Insurance Company which has contested this appeal, hence, in the aforesaid backdrop in absence of any cross appeal/cross objections by the respondents, the findings returned by the Tribunal relating to the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, findings relating to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the findings relating to the offending vehicle being insured by the insurance company and its driver having a valid licence, all are affirmed as there is no challenge to it.

11. Now, the only issue that needs to be considers is the fact as to whether the award made by the Tribunal (only in context of its quantum) is just and fair or not. In this regard, if the material on record is seen, it would 3 FAFO No. 916 of 2015 reveal that the claimant had filed an education certificate of the deceased which indicate that his date of birth 05.09.1954. Even though in the post- mortem report, the deceased was shown to be around 65 years of age but in the High School Certificate, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 05.09.1954, hence, the same shall be acceptable and in this context the age of the deceased was 60 years on the date of the accident. Since on the date of the accident, noticing the date of birth of the deceased as per his educational certificate, he would not have completed 60 years, hence, the age would be treated to be 60 upon which the multiplier applicable would be that of 9 as noticed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and approved by a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 5 and to that extent, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has sufficient substance.

12. As far as the issue raised by the appellant regarding the income of the deceased is concerned, it was specifically pleaded that the deceased was working as a Manager at M/s. Ladeti Petrol Pump and was paid a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The said document has been brought on record, however, what is relevant to note is the fact that the proprietor of the said Petrol Pump did not enter into the witness-box to establish and prove the said income certificate.

13. Be that as it may, even if at all, the said income certificate was not proved, yet the fact remains that the Tribunal has taken a notional income of Rs.3,000/- which is very meager.

14. In the facts and circumstances where the claimant had given a statement regarding income of the deceased being Rs.15,000/- which was supported by an income certificate, but even though if not proved in accordance with law yet the fact remains that there was no contrary evidence.

15. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken the minimum income of Rs.6,000/- per month as the accident had occurred in the year 2014 and at the given time apparently the notional income could not be taken to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, to that extent, the income has also not been appropriately assessed. The claimant being the widow of the deceased was a sole heir and dependent on the deceased, hence, the 4 FAFO No. 916 of 2015 appellant ought to have been granted an appropriate compensation towards conventional heads as well as future prospect also should have been taken into consideration, which has not been noticed.

16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair. Accordingly, this Court re- determines the compensation as under:- Income Add: Future Prospect @ 15% of Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- P.M. Rs.900/- P.M. Net Income: Income After deduction of 50% (Rs.6900 divided by 2) Rs.3,450/- P.M. Age Multiplier 60 years 9 Thus, compensation payable Rs.3450x12x9 Rs.3,72,600/- Conventional Head: (i) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-; (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- (iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs.15,000/- Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Payable Rs.4,42,600/-

17. Thus, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled for a total sum as determined hereinabove of Rs.4,42,600/- with 7% interest per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Any amount already paid to the appellant shall be adjusted from the aforesaid sum and the remaining shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellant within a period of sixty days.

18. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 19.08.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No.185 of 2014 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The record of the Tribunal concerned shall be returned forthwith. September 2, 2025/Rakesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench