Allahabad High Court

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. A.R.M. And ... vs Satyavati And 5 Others on 28 July, 2017

Bench: Satyendra Singh Chauhan, Krishna Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 41
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2425 of 2015
 
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. A.R.M. And Anr.
 
Respondent :- Satyavati And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anuj Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Singh
 

 
Connected with
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2541 of 2015
 
Appellant :- Satyawati & 4 Others
 
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru' Asstt. Area Manager & 2  Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Srivastav
 

 
Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble Krishna Singh,J.

FAFO 2425 of 2015 has been filed by the appellants-respondents being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Fatehpur in MACP No.355 of 2012 (Satyavati and anothers vs. U.P. Rajya Parivahan Nigam and anothers) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.12,16,590/- alongwith the interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent-claimants inter-alia on the ground that the Tribunal on conjectures and surmises has held that the accident had occurred by the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the roadways-bus bearing registration No.UP-93- T-2224 and the amount of compensation is excessive as such the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is wholly illegal and is against the weight of the oral and documentary evidence available on the record of the case as such the award is liable to be setaside.

FAFO 2541 of 2015 has been filed by the appellants-claimants against the said impugned judgment and award for enhancement of amount awarded by the Tribunal inter-alia on the ground that deceased Suresh Chandra was a Class -IV Government employee in Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Khajuha, Fatehpur and he was drawing salary of Rs.15,346/- per month, which was proved by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants-claimants. The Tribunal has worked out the compensation only on the basis of pay band/basic pay of deceased i.e. Rs.7,900/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted as Rs.5,656/- that is DA, 1,800/- grade-pay and Rs.20/- WA from the gross salary of Rs.15,356/-. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants-claimants is inadequate, therefore, it needs to be enhanced.

As the controversy involved in these appeals is identical, the same are being heard together and decided by the common judgment and order.

The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.7.2012 at about 7:15 P.M. deceased Suresh Chandra met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the roadways-bus bearing Registration No.UP-93-T-2224, FIR of the said accident was lodged by one Rajesh Kumar at Police Station-Aung, District-Fatehpur against the driver of the said roadways-bus. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor. After investigation in the case, the police has submitted the charge-sheet No.37 of 2012, under Section-279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said roadways-bus Pramod Kumar Singh.

In support of the claim, three witnesses were examined including Smt Satyavati Devi (PW-1) (the wife of the deceased) on behalf of the respondents-claimants. The Tribunbal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants has held that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 24.7.2012. Accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said roadways-bus. At the time of accident, the deceased was a Class-IV employee in the Medical and Health Department and drawing salary of Rs.15,346/- per month. The Tribunal while awarding compensation assessed the net income of the deceased Rs.7,900/- per month i.e. 94,800/- annual. At the time of accident the age of deceased was 48 years. In view of the Rule-220 ka (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 2001, the Tribunal added 30% of the annual salary of the deceased i.e. Rs.28,440/- as future prospects and accordingly assessed the annual income of the deceased Rs.1,23,240/-. One-fourth deduction has been made by the Tribunal for personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting one-fourth (Rs.30,810/-), the Tribunal has assessed dependency at Rs.92,430/- per annum. The Tribunal after multiplying the multiplier of 13 worked out the compensation as Rs.12,01,590/-. In addition to that Tribunal has also awarded to the claimants Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium. Accordingly, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.12,16,590/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents is that there are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and also the number of vehicle was not known to the witnesses. The witnesses are not eye-witnesses and the claimants have failed to prove their case in regard to the vehicle involved in the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that after the death of the deceased the widow of deceased (claimant Smt. Satyavati) was given compassionate appointment and she was getting family pension as well, but while calculating the loss of dependency the Tribunal has not deducted the aforesaid benefit, which the widow of the deceased was getting. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and as such the award is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has submitted that, it is proved from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal that accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the roadways-bus bearing registration No.UP-93-T-2224. Respondent Pramod Kumar Singh (OPW-1) is the driver of the said offending roadways-bus. He admitted in his statement on oath that on the date of accident he was driving the said roadways-bus. After investigation police has submitted the charge-sheet against the said driver. Claimants are the legal representative of the deceased and they are entitled to get the compensation for the death of deceased from the appellants-respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the compensation on lower side to the dependents of the deceased. The award therefore needs to be enhanced.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is evident from the record that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has taken into account the contradictions of the witnesses and the contradictions has been considered in the light of the evidence on record. The evidence on record goes to indicate that the driver of the offending roadways-bus on the date of accident had proceeded from Banda to Gorakhpur and the accident had occurred on the said date at about 7:15 P.M. near Gupta Hotel. The said vehicle was seized in Police Station-Aung, Fatehpur and the driver got himself bailed out and the vehicle was also released from the said police station. Once the driver of the said roadways-bus Pramod Kumar Singh OPW-1 has admitted the aforesaid fact in his statement on oath then it cannot be doubted that the accident has not taken place from the said roadways-bus and the said vehicle was not involved in the accident.

In our opinion, contradictions which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are not much material as to discard the factum of accident. On the basis of finding recorded by the Tribunal and the evidence on record we come to the conslusion that the accident had taken place from the said roadways-bus and the compensation, which has been awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate.

In the case of Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore and anothers, 2013 (3) TAC (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Family Pension or compassionate appointment cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act."

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court we are of the view that family pension is a pecuniary advantage receivable by the claimant Smt Satyavati (wife of the deceased) on account of death of deceased. Family pension has no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and to be termed as pecuniary advantage liable for deduction. We are also of the view that salary receivable by the claimant Smt Satyavati on compassionate appointment cannot be termed as a pecuniary advantage that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on the basis of such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

It appears from the record that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants, Tribunal has concluded that the deceased was a Class-IV employee. At the time of accident he was posted at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Khajuha, Fatehpur and getting salary of Rs.15,346/- per month. While calculating the amount of compensation, the Tribunal deducted as Rs.5,626/- i.e. DA, Rs.1,800/- Grade Pay and Rs.20/- W.A from the gross salary of the deceased. As such on the basis of basic pay / pay band Rs.7,900/- Tribunal assessed the net income of the deceased Rs.7,900/- per month i.e. Rs.94,800/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 48 years.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and another, 2009 (3) AWC 2138 (SC) the Tribunal with reference to the age of deceased used the multiplier of 13. The Tribunal further added 30% of the said annual salary of the deceased i.e. Rs.28,440/- as future prospects and accordingly assessed the annual income Rs.1,23,240/-. After deducting one-fourth (Rs.30,810/-) as personal and living expenses of the deceased the Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs.92,430/- per annum. The Tribunal after multiplying the multiplier of 13 worked out the compensation as Rs.12,01,590/-.

After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that while awarding the compensation deductions as Rs.5,626/- i.e. DA, Rs.1,800/- Grade Pay and Rs.20/- W.A. made by the Tribunal from the gross salary of the deceased is not justified. We accordingly provide that after deducting the Income Tax, compensation should have been awarded on the basis of gross salary of the deceased. In view of the above compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced.

Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellants/ claimants is worked out as under:-

Annual salary of the deceased

Rs.15,346/- per month i.e.Rs.1,84,152/-annual.

Income Tax payable for the relevant year (2012-2013)

(i) Income Tax upto Rs.1,80,000/-

(ii) Income Tax from 1,80,001/- to 1,84,152 @ 10%

(iii) Add 3% cess of Total Tax

Net Tax payable

Nil

Rs.415/-

+Rs. 12/-

Rs.427/-

Net salary of the deceased after deducting Income Tax

Rs.1,83,725/-

Future prospects (30% of the Annual Salary

Rs.55,117/-

Total Income (Annual Salary + Future prospects)

Rs.1,83,725/-

+Rs. 55,117/-

=Rs.2,38,842/-

1/4th deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Rs.2,38,842/-

-Rs. 59,620/-

=Rs.1,79,222/-

Multiplier applicable with reference to the age of deceased as per Sarla Verma's case

Loss of dependency

Rs.1,79,222x13

=Rs.23,29,886/-

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads

Rs.15,000/-

Total amount of compensation

Rs.23,29,886/-

+Rs.     15,000/-
 
=Rs.23,44,886/-
 
k.
 
Amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal
 
 Rs.12,16,590/-
 
l.
 
Amount enhanced
 
  Rs.23,44,886/-
 
-Rs.12,16,590/-
 
=Rs.11,28,296/-
 
	On the basis of discussions made above, we are of the view that FAFO 2425 of 2015  is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

FAFO 2541 of 2015 is disposed of by modifying the impugned judgment and award by increasing the compensation awarded from Rs.12,16,590/- to Rs.23,44,886/-. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of award Rs.11,28,296/- in addition to what is already awarded, alongwith the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The increase in the compensation as awarded by us shall be taken by the appellant-claimant Smt.Satyavati exclusively. The said sum shall be invested for three years in the maximum interest bearing scheme in the name of Smt Satyavati.

Parties to bear respective costs.

Order Date :- 28.7.2017

S Rawat

(Krishna Singh,J.) (Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.)