Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kumkum Gupta vs U.P.S.R.Tc. Lko. And Others on 11 May, 2026
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:108332
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 354 of 1998
Smt. Kumkum Gupta
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
U.P.S.R.Tc. Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Pramod Kumar Jain, Yogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Arvind Kumar, Brijesh Chandra Naik, D. Awasthi, Ishir Sripat, S.P.Singh, Sunil Kumar Mishra, V.S.Sisodia, Vinod Sinha, Vipin Kumar Singh, Vishesh Kumar Gupta
Along with :
1.
First Appeal From Order No. 213 of 1998:
Smt. Pushp Lata and others
Versus
U.P.R.T.C. and another
Court No. - 50
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
I.A. No.10 of 2024 in Re: FAFO No.354 of 1998:
1. The abatement application has been filed alleging that during pendency of the appeal, Opposite Party No.5 has died and no substitution application has been carried out.
2. As in the appeal, no relief has been claimed against Opposite Party No.5, abatement as against Opposite Party No.5 has no consequences.
3. Accordingly, the abatement application is disposed off.
I.A. No.8 of 2024 in Re: FAFO No.213 of 1998:
4. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing substitution application.
5. Cause shown is sufficient.
6. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
7. The application is accordingly allowed.
I.A. No.9 of 2024 in Re: FAFO No.213 of 1998:
8. The application has been filed seeking substitution of legal heirs in place of appellant no.2.
9. The application is allowed.
10. Let necessary correction be incorporated during the course of the day.
Order on Appeals:
11. Both the appeals are being decided simultaneously.
12. FAFO No.354 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant namely Ms. Kumkum Gupta challenging the award dated 29.01.1998 passed in M.A.C. No.132 of 1990 only to the extent that the quantum awarded is inadequate.
FAFO No.213 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellants who are mother and sisters of the deceased claiming that they ought to have been awarded compensation on account of death of their son and brother and the Tribunal has erred in refusing to accept them as financially dependent on the deceased.
13. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased was travelling in a taxi bearing No. DLY 2180 and while reaching at civil lines, the said taxi met with an accident with a bus bearing No. UGL 813 which resulted in his death. The deceased was survived by his wife, mother, father and two sisters who were unmarried at the time of accident. In the claim petition it was alleged that the appellant Ms. Kumkum Gupta is entitled to compensation to the exclusion of other whereas the claim of father, mother and two sisters was that they being financially dependent were also entitled to compensation. The Tribunal by a composite award awarded compensation to the wife amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- and interest from the date of judgement at the rate of 15%. The claim at the instance of the father, mother and two sisters was rejected holding that they were not financially dependent on the deceased.
14. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, what is to be determined is whether the amount of compensation granted on account of the death was justified or not?
15. The deceased was working in a bank and was promoted as Regional Manager, however, unfortunately before the same, he died. His income was assessed at Rs.4,700/- per month which is not being disputed by the appellant. The age of the deceased was 40 years which is also not being disputed by the appellant. The only claim is that the future prospects and the non pecuniary damages as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 decided on 15.04.2009, as well as in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130, have not been awarded.
16. The claim of the sisters and the mother was rejected by the Tribunal holding that they were dependent on the father and had other means of income; there is no material placed on behalf of the appellants in FAFO No.213 of 1998 to demonstrate that the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is either perverse or contrary to the records. In view thereof, no error is found in the award insofar as it holds that the sisters and mother were not financially dependent on the deceased.
17. Thus, the award is interfered only in respect of the quantum of amount awarded based upon the judgement of the Supreme Court referred above. The amount is re-worked as under:
Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded
1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.4,700/- per month
2. Adding 50% towards future prospects in the light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) Rs.7,050/- per month
3. Net yearly income Rs.84,600/-
4. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.84,600 x 1/3rd = Rs.28,200/-
After deduction:
Rs.84,600 - Rs.28,200 =Rs.56,400/-
5. Applying multiplier of '15' Rs.56,400 x 15 =Rs.8,46,000/-
6.
Amount under conventional heads: (i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/- (ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra) (iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per person (Rs.48,500 x 5) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) Rs.18,500 + Rs.18,500 + Rs.2,42,500 = Rs.2,79,500/-
7. Total amount of compensation (Sr.No.5 + Sr.No.6) Rs.8,46,000+ Rs.2,79,500/-
Rs. 11,25,500/-
18. The amount as recorded above shall be paid within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment/realisation and the amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimants.
19. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be paid to the claimants.
20. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in the account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details of anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount shall not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required to open a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only.
21. Loss of consortium shall be paid @ Rs.48,500/- to mother and two sisters/their legal heirs. The amount of Rs.48,500/- payable to the father of the deceased shall be paid to his wife only. The balance amount shall be paid to Smt. Kumkum Gupta only.
22. Lower Court records, if received, shall be transmitted to the Court concerned.
23. Both the appeals stand disposed off in above terms.
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.) May 11, 2026 nishant