Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shyama Devi @ Pranavati And Ors. vs Sushant Shukla And Another on 27 May, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31707
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 860 of 2014
Appellant :- Smt. Shyama Devi @ Pranavati And Ors.
Respondent :- Sushant Shukla And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mukesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Hari Prakash Srivastava,Rajesh Kr Pal
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Hari Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. Despite the name of Shri Anil Kumar Yadav and Shri Rajesh Kr. Pal being indicated from the side of respondent, none has responded on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. As the matter is of the year 2014, as such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter.
4. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants / appellants praying for enhancement of the award dated 10.02.2014 as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad in MACT Case No.238 of 2013 in Re: Smt. Shyama Devi and Others vs. Sushant Shukla and Another.
5. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,69,000/- in favour of the claimants.
6. It is contended that an accident is said to have occurred on 19.08.2013 in which Shri Ram Keval, the husband of claimant No.1 and the father of the claimants No.2 to 4, has died.
7. Learned Tribunal by means of the award impugned has awarded a sum of Rs.3,69,000/- in favour of the claimants and the instant appeal has been filed praying for enhancement of the awarded amount.
8. The enhancement has been claimed on the following grounds namely :-
(a) Notional income of the deceased has been treated as Rs.100/- per day or Rs.3,000/- per month, thought he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet and Another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of an accident occurred in the year 2006 has held the notional income of the deceased agricultural labour as Rs.6,000/- per month, it is prayed that the notional income of the deceased should be enhanced.
A perusal of the award impugned would indicate that though it had been pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the deceased, who was running a hotel, was earning about 15000/- per month yet the learned Tribunal has considered that as no evidence has been led in this regard nor any registration number of the hotel has been produced, as such, the income of the deceased has been treated as one of an unskilled labour and the learned Tribunal has held the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month by treating it to be Rs.100/- per day.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet (supra) in an accident of the year 2006 has held the income of the agricultural labour as Rs.6,000/- per month.
In the instant case, the accident is said to have occurred on 19.08.2013. Thus, this Court finds it appropriate to treat the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet (supra).
The order of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified.
(b) Learned counsel for the appellants contends that no amount has been awarded towards the future prospects of the deceased.
In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680 to contend that in paragraph 59.4 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and an addition of 30% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years.
In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased to be 45 years.
Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant would also be entitled for addition of 30% of the established income towards future prospects.
The order of the learned Tribunal stands modified.
(c) The claimants have indicated that against the conventional heads, an amount of Rs.9,500/- has only been awarded.
Again placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an amount of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses be payable which is to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled for a total amount of Rs.70,000/- with enhancement at the rate of 10% in a span of three years.
The impugned award stands modified.
(d) Further placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Babita & Ors. vs. Karnataka Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2222 of 2024, it has been argued that the amount of consortium of Rs.40,000/- as directed to be paid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) would be payable to all the claimants.
Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babita (supra), it is provided that the consortium of Rs.40,000/- would be paid to all the four claimants.
The award of learned Tribunal stands modified.
(e) The further argument is that the learned Tribunal has directed for deduction of 1/3rd of the amount towards expenses considering that the number of claimants were four out of which three were major and one minor and consequently, has considered the claimants as three and a half.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009 (6) SCC 121, more particularly in paragraph 30, the argument is that where the number of dependent family members are 4 to 6, 1/4th should be standardized deduction.
In the instant case, though the number of claimants are four yet 3 of them are major and one is minor as specifically indicated by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 17 of the judgment. However, considering that the The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation, it would be in a fitness of things that three and a half should be rounded to four and consequently, the deduction of 1/4th of the amount would be applicable in the instant case following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
The award of the learned Tribunal stands modified.
(f) The interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is at the rate of 6% per annum yet as per The U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (amended), the rate of interest is now 7% per annum.
Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for the payment at the rate of 7% per annum.
The award of the learned Tribunal stands modified.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal stands modified in view of the discussion made above.
10. Let the aforesaid amount be calculated by the respondent No.2 / insurance company within two months from today. The calculated amount after adjustment of the amount, if any, already paid would be deposited before the learned Tribunal within the aforesaid period of time.
11. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount in accordance with law.
12. Let the trial court record be returned back.
Order Date :- 27.5.2025/S. Shivhare
