Manzoor Ali And Another vs Shri Prem Prakash Bajpai And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 7322 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manzoor Ali And Another vs Shri Prem Prakash Bajpai And Ors. on 27 May, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32194
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 436 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Manzoor Ali And Another
 
Respondent :- Shri Prem Prakash Bajpai And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Jauhari,Anil Mishra,Mohit Jauhari,Shakeel Ahmad
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Vivek Manishi Shukla,Zafar Aziz
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. Despite vakalatnama having been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 by Shri Vivek Manishi Shukla, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 neither any request for adjournment has been made on his behalf.

3. As the matter pertains to the year 2015, as such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

4. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of the amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal vide the award dated 26.03.2015 as passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Application No.179 of 2013 in Re: Manjur Ali and Others vs. Prem Prakash Bajpai and Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- in favour of claimants.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the application before the learned Tribunal had been filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (unamended) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") and the learned Tribunal, by means of the award impugned, has awarded the aforesaid sum.

6. Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 is a provision where the claimant is not required to plead or establish the death or permanent disablement for which the claim has been filed, was due to act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the second schedule appended to Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 has been repealed and now one consolidated sum is payable in cases related to death as per the amended provisions which have come into effect in the year 2018.

8. It is contended that the enhancement has been considered by this Court in the case of Shri Guddu and Anr. vs. State of U.P. 2023 AHC-LKO:77684, wherein this Court, after placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Poonam Gupta vs. Arun Kumar Mishra 2019 SCC OnLine All 6786, has held as under:-

"Now, the only issue which is left for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has awarded an appropriate amount or not. In this regard, it will also be relevant to notice that the second schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 has been repealed and now one consolidated sum is payable in cases relating to death as per the amended provisions which has come into effect in the year 2018.

This Court is reminded of its decision in Poonam Gupta v. Arun Kumar Mishra, 2019 SCC Online All 6786, whereby this Court had the occasion to consider the impact of the amended provisions which came into effect in the year 2018 especially noticing that the accident occurred prior to that date and what would be the effect if the amendment which was introduced in the year 2018 can be made applicable in cases of appeal.

This Court after considering the decisions of the Apex Court and another decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has held as under:-

"18. In view of the above, it would be noted that in terms of the aforesaid amendment introduced in the Second Schedule which replaces the entire structured formula which was prevalent in the earlier Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A. From the aforesaid, it would also reveal that the concept of non-pecuniary damages has been taken away and a complete lump sum amount in case of fatal accident causing death for which a lump sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been provided. Earlier, the compensation was being calculated on the structured formula thereafter the interest and the amount towards the non-pecuniary damages was granted by the Court and with fixing the non-pecuniary damages by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) the claimants were entitled to be same, however, as the appellant has relied upon the amendment incorporated in the year 2018 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has urged that the same is applicable in the present circumstances, Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that as far as the applicability of the Second Schedule is concerned, the same shall apply, however, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that upon the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the appellants/claimants should also be granted non-pecuniary damages as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) does not find favour with this Court.

19. The entire premise upon which the new Schedule has been amended gives no reason to doubt that as far as death cases are concerned one lump sum amount is to be granted upon which the claimants may be entitled to the interest, however, apart from the lump sum, there is no scope to grant any further amount towards the non-pecuniary damages as it would be seen that earlier in the second schedule an amount was mentioned towards grant of non-pecuniary damages even though meager which in certain decisions of the Apex Court was termed as redentant and now with the new substitution of the IInd Schedule as per the amendment of 2018, there is no provision for grant of any sum towards non-pecuniary damages. The legislature has introduced the amendment after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and if wanted to provide for non-pecuniary damages it could have provided so in the schedule, however, it has not been done and it appears to be purposefully to provide one composite amount as lump sum in case of fatal accidents and injury cases covered under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to make the grant of amount of compensation relevant in today's scenario."

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear opinion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit and this Court provides that the appellant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of its actual payment and any amount already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted from the same and the balance if any shall be payable to the claimants-appellants.

In view of the aforesaid, the award dated 24.03.2017 passed in Claim Petition No.616/2015 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extend."

9. The principle of law laid down by this Court in the judgment of Shri Guddu (supra) is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

10. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shri Guddu (supra) would indicate that this Court has considered the amendment as made in the Act, 1988, wherein an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is now provided to the claimant as compensation.

11. Keeping in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Guddu (supra), the Court is of the view that the appellants / claimants are entitled to the said benefit.

12. Accordingly, the Court provides that the appellants / claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of actual payment. Any amount already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted from the same and the balance, if any, shall be payable to the claimants as per rules.

13. The award dated 26.03.2015 stands modified in view of the aforesaid discussion.

14. The appeal stands partly allowed.

15. Let the trial court record be returned back.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

S. Shivhare