Allahabad High Court
Anita Singh And Ors vs Suresh Chandra And Ors on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:68741
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1056 of 2016
Anita Singh And Ors
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Suresh Chandra And Ors
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Mohd. Sabir Farooqui, Niteesh Kumar, Rajeev Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Amitabh Tripathi, Tarun Kumar Misra
Court No. - 19
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Niteesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Tarun Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondent no.3. None appeared for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 although Shri Amitabh Tripathi, Advocate has already put in appearance on their behalf.
2. Admit.
3. As the limited question involved in the present appeal is in respect of quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants in connection with death of deceased-Sanjay Singh made by his dependent which include wife and children, the first appeal is being decided with the consent of the parties present on merits.
4. Instant First Appeal From Order has been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 06.08.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raebareli (in short "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 85/2016 (Anita Singh and Others Vs. Suresh Chandra and Others).
5. Vide impugned judgment and award dated 06.08.201, learned Tribunal as awarded a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- as death claim compensation which is made payable by the respondent no.3-Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited.
6. The appellants are original claimants before the Tribunal, who are aggrieved by quantum of compensation awarded to them by the tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the accident occurred on 19.12.2015 at 11:00 hours when deceased- Sanjay Singh was travelling on his motorcycle to visit ARTO Office for his renewal of his driving license. As soon as he reached in the limit of Village Hardaspur, Sharda Canal, Maharajganj-Raebareli Road, a pickup vehicle bearing registration number UP 41 T 4699 hit the deceased from behind which was being driven by in a rash and negligent manner. The accident resulted in death of the victim- Sanjay Singh on 07.01.2016. During course of statement in view of injuries suffered in the accident, the Tribunal has framed six main issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The vehicle was duly insured by respondent no.3/Insurance Company on the date of accident and its insurance papers were found valid. Respondent no.3 contested the case and filed written statements. Opposite party no. 1 & 2 are owner and driver of vehicle, respectively, who also filed written statements before the Tribunal in which they denied the allegations that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. They stated that the Vehicle Tata Pick-Up was carrying fertilizer on 19.12.2015. The motorcycle driver was himself driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and due to this he suddenly fell down at the place of accident and got injured. No accident got done by their vehicle. The vehicle was only passing through the place of incident.
8. He next submits that learned Tribunal has given a finding that accident occurred by Pick-Up Vehicle bearing registration number UP 41 T 4699 due to rash and negligent manner and it hit motorcycle driver-deceased from the behind who died during course of treatment. Learned Tribunal has also given a finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-motorcycle driver and accident occurred due to rush and negligence driving of driver of the Pick-Up. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective license at the time of incident and it was duly insured by respondent no.3 and vehicle was being driven according to the terms of insurance. No adverse inference will be drawn in the present petition due to the fact that insurance company of the vehicle driven by the deceased was not impleaded as party to the claim petition.
10. He next summits that the claimants are mainly aggrieved by the quantum of compensation which is wrongly been calculated by the tribunal in ignorance of the fact that the accident occurred on 19.12.2015 and only Rs.3,000/- monthly of the deceased has been estimated as his notional income inasmuch as funeral expenses and consortium are also wrongly added.
11. He also summits that no further prospect was considered and added in quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants.
12. Lastly, he submits that even if the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 was pronounced in the year 2017 i.e. after decision on the present petition on 06.08.2016. The benevolent guidelines issued in the said judgment would be applicable in the present appeal and the claimants should be extended benefit of said judgment given under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation to the plights of the dependents of a deceased, who was victim of a motor accident.
13. Learned counsel also places reliance on judgment in Kanishk Sinha v. State of W.B., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 443 in which SLP filed against judgment of Single Judge of Calcutta High Court by which the criminal revision of appellants who was charge-sheeted under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (?IPC?), read with Section 66A (a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (?IT Act?). Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment passed in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287, observed as under :-
"Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.
4. In Priyanka Srivastava (supra) this Court was seized with an issue where frivolous complaints were being filed before the Magistrate only to harass people and therefore, in order to check this trend, it was directed that all applications before the Court where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are made must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Such a step could only be prospective in nature, and this is clearly reflected from the very language used by the Learned Judges in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), where it has been said as under:
?30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.?
(Emphasis provided)"
14. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 07.12.2017 passed in FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 157 of 2014 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Through Its Manager Vs. Smt. Jhoolmati and Ors.) along with FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 640 of 2014 wherein this Court was placed to fix notional income of the deceased whose income was proved as Rs.6,000/- per month keeping in view the minimum wages fixed by Central Government in MGNREGA Scheme and applied multiple in terms of schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. In that case also, Tribunal had calculated the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100 per day and thus enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Per contra, Shri Tarun Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that as judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2017 and that the Tribunal was not in a position to apply the guidelines issued in the said judgment and the case has been decided on the basis of existing law on the basis of statutory provisions and law as laid down by various pronouncements at the time of passing of award on 06.08.2016, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order.
16. With above submissions, learned counsel for respondent no.3 prays for dismissal of the appeal.
17. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 19.12.2015 but notional income of the deceased has been fixed by the Tribunal only of Rs.3,000/- per month. Keeping in view the approach taken by this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Through Its Manager Vs. Smt. Jhoolmati and Ors. (Supra) where in an accident occured on 10.10.2009, the notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the central government in MNREGA Scheme. The national income of the deceased in the present case should be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month as central government has enhanced the minimum wages for MNREGA workers/labourers in the Financial Year 201-15 from Rs.286 per day to Rs.350 per day and on that basis quantum of compensation will be modified.
18. In this manner, claimants are entitled for following amount of award:
(i) Annual income : Rs.1,20,000/-
(ii) As the deceased was unmarried, deduction to the extent of 1/4th i.e. Rs.30,000/-
(iii) Multiplier of 16 with regard to age of the deceased (Rs.90,000/- X 16)= Rs.14,40,000/-
(iv) Future prospects in the light of Pranay Sethi'scase (supra) to be 30% as the deceased person was engaged on daily wages on daily basis (Rs.14,40,000 X 30/100) : 4,32,000/-
Total amount admissible : Rs.18,72, 000/-
(v) Loss of estate : Rs.15,000/-
(vi) Loss of consortium : Rs.40,000/-
(vii) Funeral Expenses : Rs.15,000/-
Total amount : Rs. 19,42,000=00
19. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for Rs.19,42,000/- as compensation in various heads admissible under law in the light of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra). The judgment is based on a beneficial legislation, its benefit shall be extended in the present case also, despite the fact that the accident in the case occurred prior to the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra).
20. The appeal is allowed.
21. Claimants are entitled for amount of compensation of Rs.19,42,000/-. Out of total awarded amount of appellant no.1 shall receive 30% of the amount and appellant nos. 2 to 5, who are minor children of the deceased at the time of filing of appeal, shall receive remaining amount i.e. 70% of awarded amount.
22. Requisite calculation will be done by the Tribunal as per this modified judgment.
23. Out of amount of compensation admissible to appellant no.1, half of the amount will be paid to her by cheque and remaining half shall be invested for three years in some nationalized bank or post-office or fixed deposit scheme giving maximum interest. The amount admissible to the appellant nos. 2 to 5 shall be invested in some nationalized bank or post-office or fixed deposit scheme giving maximum interest until they attain the age of majority, if not already attained. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company shall deposit entire decretal amount as per this modified award before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of filing of application along with copy of this judgment by the appellants before the Tribunal. Any amount already deposited by the Insurance Company shall be liable to be adjusted. The Appellant Nos.2 to 5 shall receive their amount deposited in FDR on orders of the Tribunal along with interest, 50% instantly in their respective account and 50% shall remain re-invested in FDR for three years and they will receive the same on orders of the Tribunal after three year's maturity period.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
November 3, 2025
Mohit Singh/-
