Allahabad High Court
Smt. Chandrawati Yadav And Ors. vs Sri Vikas Pathak And Anr. on 27 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:30079
AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 885 of 2012
Smt. Chandrawati Yadav And Ors.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Vikas Pathak And Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Balendu Shekhar, Mahesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A. Rafique, Anil Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 19
HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
1. Sri Balendu Shekar learned counsel for the appellants; Sri A. Rafique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2?ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited are present.
2. By means of the present Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants/Claimants have assailed the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-02, Lucknow/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Learned Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 241/2009 (Smt. Chandravati Yadav and Others versus Vikas Pathak and Others).
3. The facts of the case that culled out from the pleadings are that in a road accident occurred on 15.04.2009 at 8:00 P.M. on Lucknow-Hardoi Road near Kushmora falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow, the husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellants no. 2 to 4 (Late) Suresh Chandra Yadav, lost his life. It is pleaded by the Appellants that the deceased was riding his bicycle in a careful and cautious manner at time and the place of accident, when the driver of Hyundai Santro Car bearing registration number U.P.32CM1065, insured by respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") and owned with respondent no. 1, drove the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident by hitting the bicycle of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death at the place of accident itself. The appellants/claimants filed Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that was registered as Claim Petition No. 241/2009 (Smt. Chandravati Yadav and Others versus Vikas Pathak and Others) before the Learned Tribunal, primarily on the ground that the deceased was a government employee and was earning monthly salary of Rs. 12,946/-, and had he survived, he would have continued to earn and maintain his family comprising of his wife (appellant no. 1) and three children (appellants no. 2 to 4). The appellants/claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum before the learned Tribunal.
4. The learned Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 241/2009, framed the following issues for determination:
-
???? ?????? 15.04.09 ?? ??? ?? ???? 08.00 ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????, ???? ???? ??? ??? ??.??.??.32 ??.??. 1065 ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ??, ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?
-
???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??.2 ??.??.??.??.??. ????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??. ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?
-
???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?? ?
-
???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ? 5. The learned Tribunal vide Order dated 11.04.2021 passed in the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 241/2009 awarded compensation to a tune of Rs. 10,59,692/- to the appellants/claimants along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. While deciding the Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal held contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cyclist and the driver of the offending vehicle, thereby fixed negligence on the part of the deceased at 40% and that of the driver of the offending vehicle at 60%. While deciding Issue No. 4 regarding the quantification of compensation, the learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 12,946/- on the basis of the 'salary certificate' available on record and added 30% towards future prospects in view of the age factor of the deceased falling between the age group of 40-50 years. However, the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. By applying the multiplier of 13 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Learned Tribunal determined the compensation to a tune of Rs. 10,50,192/-. Further, an amount of Rs. 9500/- under conventional heads was also added. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants aggregating to Rs. 10,59,692/-, with the direction that the said amount be disbursed in the following manner:
1. ??????? ?????????? ??? ???? 48 ???? ????? ???. ????? ?????? ????, ?? ??. 1,22,000.00 ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????. ?? ???? ??????????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??? ?? ??. 4,87,692.00 ????? (??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???) ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???????????? ???? ?? ????? ?? '??? ????? ??? 15 ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???????, ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????
2. ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? 27 ???? ????? ???. ???? ????? ?????? ????, ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??.30,000 ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??.1,20,000 ???? ?? ?????? 15 ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????
3. ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? 25 ???? ????? ???. ???? ????? ?????? ????, ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??.30,000 ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??.1,20,000 ???? ?? ?????? 15 ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????
4. ??. ???? ???? ??? ???? 20 ???? ????? ???. ???? ????? ?????? ????, ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??. 30,000 ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??.1,20,000 ???? ?? ?????? 15 ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 passed in Claim Petition No. 241/2009, particularly with regard to the determination of 40% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, deduction of 1/3rd of the deceased's monthly income towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/4th, inadequacy of compensation under conventional heads, and award of interest at the rate of 7% per annum instead of 12% per annum; the appellants/claimants have preferred the instant Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited raised an objection to the effect that as per the amended Rule 204 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident should be made party in Claim petition and since the driver of the offending vehicle was not impleaded by the appellants in the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 241 of 2009, the same was liable to be rejected on this score alone being maintainable. Consequently, the present Appeal arising out of said Claim Petition No. 241/2009, is also non-maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Confronting the aforesaid preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellants/claimants submitted that the Respondent No. 2 did not raised the said objection before the Learned Tribunal and for the first time the same has been raised at this appellate stage. Further, he submitted that the Claim Petition No. 241 of 2009 was filed on 11.05.2009, while the mandatory requirement regarding impleadment of the driver as a necessary party was introduced by way of the Eleventh Amendment to the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, as Rule 204(7) to the said Rules of 2011. He contended that the said statutory requirement was introduced much after the filing of the Claim Petition and as such, the non-impleadment of the driver could not render the Claim Petition as non-maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar versus D. S. Mylarappa reported in AIR 2008 SC 2545.
9. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be apt to address the issue raised on behalf of respondent No. 2 regarding the maintainability of the present Appeal arising out of the Claim Petition No. 241of 2009.
10. In so far as the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 that non-fulfilment of the mandatory requirement stipulated under the amended Rule 204(7) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011 rendered aforesaid Claim Petition non-maintainable before the Learned Tribunal; it is pertinent to mention that the said amendment to the Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011 has been published in official gazette dated 26.9.2019, whereas the Claim Petition in question was filed on 11.05.2009, i.e., much before the coming into force of said amendment to the Motor Vehicle Rules. It is well settled in law that a legislation is applicable prospectively unless specifically provided therein. It is trite in law that, in absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to be operated with retrospective effect, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the said act was passed.
11. For a ready reference, the Amended Rule 204(7) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011 is reproduced herein below, "4. Amendment of Rule 204.-In the said rules, for Rule 204, the following rule shall be substituted, namely--
"204. Application for compensation.-
(1) ...
?
(7) The driver of the vehicle, involved in the accident, shall be the necessary party in the application for compensation filed under Section 166 of the Act."
12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Reena Tyagi and Others vide order dated 27.03.2017 in (FAFO No. 2190 of 2010) has held that the amendment in U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules making it mandatory to implead the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident shall not be retrospective in operation, however, only beneficial provision can have retrospective application.
13. In view of what has been discussed herein above establishing the the amended Rule 204(7) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011, being prospective in nature, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 regarding non-maintainability of the Claim Petition filed in the year 2009 and the present Appeal arising from the same; more particularity when the said objection/issue was never raised earlier before the learned Tribunal; stands demolished. Accordingly, the said objection raised by the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 is turned down.
14. Now, on the merits of the appeal, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in solely relying upon the site plan of the place of accident submitted after a lapse of 20 days from the date of accident by the Investigating Officer and thereby drew conclusion that there was 40% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He pleaded that PW-2 (Sant Ram Yadav) categorically deposed that the deceased was riding the bicycle carefully and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Further, on the other hand respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statements, have denied the occurrence of the accident. The said contradiction itself unveils the truthfulness of the case of the respondents. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and the entire compensation should be awarded to the appellants/claimants without any deduction on account of contributory negligence
15. Another ground taken by the appellants is that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses while the deceased had four dependents, namely, his wife and three children, therefore, the deduction should have been 1/4th in the present case. It has further been contended that the learned Tribunal committed error in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 9500/- under conventional heads, whereas each claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, and Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses. It has also been contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7% per annum, whereas in the facts of the present case, it should have been at the rate of 12% per annum.
16. The next submission made on behalf of the appellants/claimants is that the direction of the learned Tribunal directing the major portion of the compensation amount awarded to the appellants/claimants should be deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) or Monthly Income Scheme for a long period of 15 years is erroneous as the accident occurred 17 years back, and all the appellants/claimants are by now became majors, who are capable to manage their own funds. In such circumstances, the entire amount or at least the major portion thereof is required be paid to them directly.
17. Finally, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the appellants/claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation even if they have not specifically claimed the enhanced amount of compensation before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. By placing reliance upon several judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he contended that it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to award just compensation in accordance with law, regardless of the amount claimed by the claimants.
18. Per contra, the, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1, i.e., the owner of offending vehicle; vehemently argued that the impugned judgement and award suffers from no infirmity or perversity, as the learned Tribunal has analyzed the entire sequence of the accident very logically, on the basis of the material available on record.
19. The learned Counsel contended that the deceased was coming from a link-lane to the main-road, while reaching the main-road, he ought to have looked on both the sides. It was the sudden appearance of the deceased cyclist before the offending vehicle that resulted in the accident thereby forcing the offending vehicle to get dis-balanced and falling into a ditch. In this manner, the percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as 40% has been rightly determined by the learned Tribunal.
20. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that mere involvement of the driver of the offending vehicle in the accident does not ispo facto make him liable for the accident when the element of rash driving is absent. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has argued that in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Chamundeshwari and Others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596, it was held that each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Lachoo Ram and Others versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 254 wherein it was held that "the involvement of the bus in the accident cannot make the respondent liable to pay compensation unless it can be held on the basis of materials on record that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver-respondent no.2...". He argues that in the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle was neither rash nor negligent and therefore, he cannot be solely held liable for causing the accident.
21. Lastly, he submitted that the site plan/naksha nazri is an important piece of evidence, and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 by taking it into consideration the material on record particularly the naksha nazri; holding contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident in question. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony versus Karvarnan and Others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748. For a ready reference, Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below, "8. It is not in dispute that the Mahazar Ex. P-2 showed that the accident spot was at a distance of 2.26 meters from the Southern edge of the tarred road and 4.79 meters from the Northern edge of the tarred road. If the appellant was proceeding from Palakkad to Trichur (from East to West) and the accident occurred at a distance of 2.2 meters from the southern edge of the road and 4.79 meters from the Northern edge of the road, the inference is that the appellant was on the right side of the road and the private bus came partly to the wrong side of the road. But the fact that there was a head-on collision could not be ignored. The evidence shows that the appellant was not diligent, as he neither slowed down the bus nor swerved to his left, on seeing the oncoming bus. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the appellant was also partly responsible for the accident and we fix the responsibility at 25% on the appellant and 75% on the first respondent."
22. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. This Court now proceeds to examine the issues that arise for consideration in the present appeal. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the issues are addressed in seriatim.
23. The foremost question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding the deceased was guilty of 40% contributory negligence.
24. The learned Tribunal has based the above-mentioned finding of contributory negligence primarily, if not solely, on the basis of the site plan/naksha nazri which is marked as document C-15/8 placed on the record of Claim Petition. The learned Tribunal observed that the said naksha nazri reflects that the deceased was coming from a link-road and suddenly emerged on the main road without looking on both left and right sides, whereas the offending vehicle was proceeding on the main-road from Hardoi towards Lucknow. The relevant finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is extracted below:
"...?? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? 15.04.09 ?? ??? 08.00 ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? 09.15 ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??-15/8 ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????-???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????-???? ????? ????? ?? ? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ??, ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? 60 ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? 40 ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??. 1 ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ??"
(Emphasis supplied by this court)
25. Needless to say that rash and negligent driving is sine quo non for deciding a Claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachoo Ram (Supra) is has very explicitly held that the driver/owner of the vehicle causing the accident is not liable to pay compensation unless it can be held on the basis of materials on record, the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the said driver of the vehicle. Moreover, it is necessary for the courts to appreciate the evidence on record, in order to ascertain whether the driver of the vehicle causing the accident was rash and negligent and in case he was rash and negligent, then, to ascertain as to the degree of the driver's negligence. In ascertaining the aforesaid negligence the facts speaks for itself. In this regard, it is worth noting that in the case of United India Insurance Company versus Sarita Rani Dhaka and Others reported in 1994 SCC OnLine All 684, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the facts of the said case, held that, "4. ?it is clear that driver of the oil tanker was negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the accident by applying the principle of Res ipsa loquitor. Therefore, owner is vicariously liable for negligent act of the driver and insurer which has covered the risk of the owner in respect of the vehicle has rightly been directed to pay compensation to the claimants who are dependents of the deceased."
26. Upon a careful reappraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the finding returned by learned Tribunal holding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, to the extent of 40% requires reconsideration. The material on record, including the site plan/naksha nazri and the deposition of PW-2 namely, Sant Ram Yadav, indicates that the accident occurred at a T-junction on the main road, where it is obvious that a higher degree of caution was expected from the driver of the offending vehicle. The nature of the impact and the force of collision reasonably suggest that the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed and that its driver failed to slow down his vehicle and did not followed due care while approaching the said T-junction (place of accident).
27. Further, it is relevant to note that the respondents had taken the specific plea in their written statement that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased but failed to produce any independent evidence to substantiate their plea.
28. However, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the deceased, being a cyclist entering at the said T-junction, was also under duty to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. Although, the evidence that has been placed on record does not indicate any reckless or deliberate act on the part of the deceased, a lapse in vigilance on his part cannot be completely ruled out as well. In such circumstances, the principle of contributory negligence is attracted, though the extent (percentage) thereof as assessed by the learned Tribunal appears to be on the higher side.
29. After considering the aforesaid facts in its totality and having regard to the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was under a greater obligation to anticipate and avoid harm at a T-junction, this Court is of the considered opinion that fixing negligence at 40% on the part of the deceased is disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, especially when there is no such evidence to substantiate the negligence on part of the deceased, except some lapse in vigilance. The ends of justice would be met by reducing the extent of the contributory negligence on part of the deceased to 20%, in place of 40%.
30. The second issue that falls for consideration before this court is regarding the deduction of 1/3rd of the deceased's income towards personal and living expenses.
31.The issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The said judgment has been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and, later on, followed in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410.
32. It would be apt to quote the relevant portion of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that, "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six."
[Emphasis supplied]
33. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living and expenses when the deceased had four dependents, namely his wife and three children. As such it would be lawfully justified that the said deduction should have been only 1/4th in the present case.
34. The third issue that falls for consideration before this Court is regarding the calculations of damages, loss of consortium and the multiplier under the conventional head of the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined and thereby the Hon'ble Apex Court revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. For a ready reference, Paragraph 52 of the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi [Supra] is reproduced herein-below, "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
35. Further, the principles governing award of compensation under conventional heads with regard to award for loss of consortium, have also been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and for a ready reference, Paragraph 21 of the same is reproduced herein-below, "21. ? In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".
?
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. ...
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. ? Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570]. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]."
36. Moreover, the principles governing award of compensation with multiplier is accurately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Tokas and Another versus New India Insurance Company Ltd and another, reported in 2019 (20) SCC 688 wherein after considering a catena of its previous judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows, "(4) We have perused the judgments of the courts below, and found that the multiplier has been fixed on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased boy. The issue with respect to whether the multiplier to be applied in the case of a bachelor, should be computed on the basis of the age of the deceased, or the age of the mother, is no longer res integra. There are a catena of judgments rendered by this Court, wherein it has been held that the multiplier has to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased, and not on the basis of the age of the dependants.
?
(4.8) The Court after perusing all earlier judgments, observed that the judicial pronouncements had devised a standard formula for calculation of the compensation qua various components. The amount of compensation is to be paid to the claimants who are dependents in the event of the death of a person, based on what the deceased would have contributed to their support. The amount received by the dependants becomes a part of the estate, as they may live longer, or may be younger than the age-limits taken into account for calculation of the multiplier to be applied in such a situation. In the case of the death of a married person, it is an accepted norm that the age of the deceased would be taken into account. The Court held that even in the case of a bachelor, the same principle must be applied. The Court held that once the law is settled, it should not repeatedly be changed, since certainty of law is of crucial importance, to avoid any confusion."
37. Now, as the principles are well settled regarding the calculation of damages, loss of consortium and the multiplier under the conventional head of the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as have been encapsulated above, the same can be applied in view of the facts of the present case. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, namely Loss of Consortium (loss of love and affection), loss of estate, and funeral expenses, this Court is of the opinion that a reasonable sum should be fixed. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed herein-above, for ensuring consistency and fairness in compensation, it is appropriate in the facts of the present case to enhance the amount falling under the Conventional Heads to Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses.
38. The fourth issue that falls for consideration before this Court is regarding the correctness of the direction of the learned Tribunal to invest a major portion of the compensation in Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) that was fixed for a period of 15 years.
39. It would not be out of place to refer Rule 220-B as contained in U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 which was added to the said Rules as a result of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Sushamma Thomas reported in, 1994 SCC (2) 176. For a ready reference, the aforesaid Rule 220-B is reproduced herein below:
"220-B. Securing the interest of Claimants.?(1) Where any lump-sum amount of compensation, deposited with the Claims Tribunal is payable to a woman or a person under legal disability/ such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman or such person during his disability in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct to be paid to any dependent of the injured or heirs of the deceased or to any other person whom the Claims Tribunal thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the injured or the heir of the deceased.
(2) Where an application made to the Claims Tribunal in this behalf otherwise, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that on account of neglect of the children on the part of the parents, or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependent, or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Claims Tribunal as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependent is to be invested applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Claims Tribunal may make such further orders for the variation of the former order as it thinks just in the circumstances of the case. the Claims Tribunal may consider such a request after being satisfied that the amount would be actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money.
(3) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of minor, order that amount of compensation awarded to such minor be invested in fixed deposits till such minor attains majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or the next friend may be allowed to be withdrawn by such guardian or the next friend from such deposits before it is deposited : Provided that the interest payable on such deposits may be allowed to be utilized for education, maintenance and development of the minor with the permission of the Claims Tribunal.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of illiterate claimants, order that the amount of compensation awarded be invested in fixed deposits for a minimum period of three years, but if any amount is required for effecting purchase of any movable or immovable property for improving the income of the claimant,the Claims Tribunal may consider such a request after being satisfied that the amount would be actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money.
(5) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of semi-literate person resort to the procedure for the deposit or award amounts set out in sub-rule (4) unless if is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for the expansion of any existing business or for the purchase of some property as specified and mentioned, in sub- rule (4) in which case the Claims Tribunal shall ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is prayed for and paid.
(6) The Claims Tribunal may in the case of literate persons also resort to the procedure for deposit of awarded amount specified.in sub-rules (4) and (5) if having regard to the age, fiscal background and state of society to which the claimant belongs and such other consideration/ the Claims Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, thinks it necessary to order.
(7) The Claims Tribunal, may in personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary, on being satisfied which shall be recorded in writing, permit the withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for the expenses of such treatment.
(8) The Claims Tribunal may, in the matter of investment of money, have regard to maximum return by ways of periodical income to the claimant, deposit with public sector undertaking of the State or Central Government which offers higher rate of interest.
(9) The Claims Tribunal shall, in investing money, direct that the interest on the deposits be paid directly to the claimants or the guardian of the minor claimants by the institution holding the deposits under intimation to the Claims Tribunal]."
40. The aforesaid Rule 220-B is a beneficial and protective framework for vulnerable claimants, i.e., claimants who are women, minors, illiterates, semi-illiterates or disabled. The purpose of the aforesaid Rule is to safeguard the funds that are awarded as compensation to the claimants so that it is securely invested and used for the long-term welfare of the claimants mentioned therein and not squandered or misused.
41. Further, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Sushamma Thomas (Supra) were re-appreciated and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma and others versus R. Venugopal and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378, wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold as follows:
"9. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation/investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
10. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice."
42. From the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Padma and Others versus R. Venugopal and Others (supra), it is clear that the guidelines were issued to keep the amount in Fixed Deposit or Monthly Income Scheme for a period of time only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows requiring special protection.
43. In the present case, the appellants/claimants No.1 lost her husband while the other appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 lost their father in the year 2009, and the award was passed in the year 2012. At present, all the claimants are undisputedly adult members. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Susamma Thomas, (Supra), which have now been incorporated in Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules of 1998, were only to safeguard the interest of the vulnerable claimants. These guidelines were not meant to be understood to mean that the Tribunal was supposed to take a rigid stand while considering the mode of disbursement of compensation to adult claimants who are capable of managing their own funds.
44. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case that the appellants/claimants are now major by age and adult members of the deceased family. The impugned award was passed in the year 2012 in respect of an accident which had taken place in the year 2009. Nearly 17 years have elapsed since the accident and the death of the deceased and 14 years have passed since the award was passed by the learned Tribunal; there is no reason to continue the FDR directed by the learned Tribunal and the restriction placed on release of compensation amount to the appellants/claimants.
45. This Court is of the opinion that the direction for investment in Fixed Deposit/Monthly Income Scheme for a period of 15 years, as contained in the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal, was appropriate at the time when the award was passed and when some of the appellants/claimants were minors or of young age. However, with the passage of considerable time, all the appellants/claimants are now mature adults capable of managing their own funds, and therefore, the continued restriction on release of the enhanced compensation amount is not at all justified at this stage.
46. The deceased namely Suresh Chandra Yadav has left behind four dependents, all of whom have claimed compensation. The dependents are: (i) Smt. Chandravati Yadav, wife of the deceased; (ii) Mukesh Yadav, son of the deceased; (iii) Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, son of the deceased; and (iv) Kumari Sarla Yadav, daughter of the deceased. There is no case that these family members were not dependent upon income the deceased. The deceased was employed in government service and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 12,946/- and was providing for maintaining the entire family comprising of 4 people.
47. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the deceased's income towards personal and living expenses, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, deduction towards personal and living expenses would be 1/4th, as the dependent family members being four in number. In this manner, the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified.
48. Over and above the substantive compensation payable, the appellants/claimants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). The compensation payable to the appellants/claimants in the present First Appeal stands modified as under:
(i) Monthly Income (of the deceased) = Rs. 12,946/-
(ii) Monthly Income + Future Prospects (monthly income x 30%) = 12,946 + 3,884 = Rs. 16,830/-
(iii) Annual Income (of the deceased) = 16,830 x 12 = Rs. 2,01,960/-
(Annual Income) ? (1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased) = 2,01,960 ? 50,490 = Rs. 1,51,470/-
(v) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency Applied Multiplier = 1,51,470 13 = Rs. 19,69,110/-
vi) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads =
-
Loss of consortium (Rs. 40,000 4 dependents)
-
Loss of estate (Rs. 15,000)
-
Funeral expenses (Rs. 15,000) = 1,60,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = Rs. 1,90,000/ Rs. 19,69,110/- + Rs. 1,90,000/-
= Rs. 21,59,110/-
v) Deduction on account of contributory negligence 20% 21,59,110 = Rs. 4,31,822/- (round figure) The total compensation works out as Rs. 21,59,110 ? Rs. 4,31,822 = Rs. 17,27,288/-
49. In view thereof, the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 241 of 2009 is modified and the compensation awarded is enhanced to a total amount of Rs. Rs. 17,27,288/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Eight only). The compensation would carry simple interest thereon at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of institution of the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 241 of 2009, until realization of the said amount of money. However, the sum of money already deposited (paid or invested in terms of the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 241 of 2009 or interim orders of this Court) shall be accordingly adjusted. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the appellants/claimants within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
50. As a result and subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
51. The original record of the Claim Petition No. 241 of 2009 be transmitted back to the Tribunal concerned at the earliest.
52. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to place on record its deep appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Research Associate, attached with me in drafting this judgment and finding out case laws applicable in the present case.
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) April 27, 2026 Arun