[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Rajender Singh & Ors on 1 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 19th February 2026
Pronounced on : 01st April 2026
Uploaded on : 02nd April 2026
+ MAC.APP. 1165/2013
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.
versus
RAJENDER SINGH & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for
R-1 to 4.
+ MAC.APP. 171/2014
RAJENDER SINGH YADAV & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for
A-1 to 4.
versus
NAWAB SINGH & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. These are cross appeals filed by owner of offending vehicle, Uttar
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ('UPSRTC') in MAC APP
1165/2013 and by Rajender Singh & Ors, the legal representatives
('LRs') of deceased/Sachin Yadav (hereinafter, 'claimants') in MAC
APP. 171/2014. Owner/UPSRTC seeks to assail the impugned award
dated 29th October 2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
('MACT'), Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter, 'Tribunal'), in M.A.C.
petition no. 20/2012 awarding 32,03,820/- at an interest rate of 9% p.a.
Since the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, bus
driver/Nawab Singh and owner/UPSRTC were held liable to pay
compensation. Claimants on the other hand seek enhancement of
compensation awarded.
The Incident
2. On 27th December 2011, Mr. Sachin Yadav (hereinafter,
'deceased') was riding on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SSBB-3336.
When he reached NH-24 near Jal Nigam Cut, PS Vijay Vihar,
Ghaziabad, a bus bearing no. UP-77N-6517 (hereinafter, 'offending
vehicle'), driven by driver/Nawab Singh allegedly in a rash and negligent
manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle.
3. As a result of the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries. It was
stated that deceased was working with Visiocorp Motherson Limited and
earning Rs.13,000/- per month and was 28 years of age.
Impugned Award
4. Offending vehicle was driven by driver/Nawab Singh while it was
owned by the UPSRTC. Driver/Nawab Singh filed a written statement
stating that he had been falsely implicated. He contended that two
motorcycle riders hit each other and fell down on the road. Since there
was a traffic signal, driver/Nawab Singh stopped the bus and suddenly a
group of 8 to 10 people came together and pulled driver/Nawab Singh
out of the offending bus and gave him beatings. Written Statement was
filed by owner/ UPSRTC reiterating the same.
5. After examining evidence, particularly the charge-sheet,
Mechanical Inspection Report ('MIR'), site plan, post mortem report and
testimony of PWs, Tribunal concluded that death of Mr. Sachin Yadav
was caused due to injuries sustained by him arising out of the accident
involving the offending vehicle.
6. Testimony of Smt. Neetu Yadav ('PW-3'), wife of late Mr. Sachin
Yadav was considered. She stated that the deceased was survived by his
parents, minor daughter, and herself. Deceased was holding a degree in
Bachelor of Technology and was a qualified engineer employed with
Visiocorp Motherson Limited, earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. Anuj
Tyagi ('PW-2'), Deputy Manager, HR of Visiocorp Motherson Limited,
brought the summoned records and stated that, deceased had joined the
organization on 10th November 2008 as a graduate engineer trainee and
was absorbed, thereafter, as a permanent employee. Rs.16,044/- was the
last drawn salary of deceased. PW-2 stated that deceased was a qualified
engineer and could have been promoted as Deputy General Manager,
earning salary of Rs.5,50,366/- per month. Age of retirement was 58
years in the organization.
7. Tribunal calculated the net salary as Rs.15,244/- [Rs. 16,044 - Rs.
800] after deducting Rs.800/- towards transport allowance, as the same
was not considered to be given for benefit of the family. To that, future
prospects of 50% were added to arrive at a figure of Rs.22,866/-. After
deducting the income tax of Rs.12,439/-, annual income of deceased
were determined as Rs.2,61,953/-. Father of deceased was not considered
to be a dependent and, therefore, 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses
was taken on the basis of 3 dependents.
8. Considering that the deceased was 28 years of age on the date of
accident, multiplier of 17 was applicable, and loss on dependency was
calculated at Rs.29,68,812/- Further, compensation was granted towards
love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, as well as loss of
consortium. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated as
under:
S. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 15,244/-
2 Add: Future Prospects (B) @ 50% Rs. 7,622/-
3 Annual Income of deceased Rs. 2,74,392/-
[(A+B) x 12]
4 Less: Tax of Rs. 12,439/- (C) Rs. 2,61,953/-
5 Less: Personal expenses of Rs. Rs. 87,317/-
deceased (D)
6 Loss of dependency (C - D) = E Rs. 1,74,636/-
8 Total loss of dependency (E x F = Rs. 29,68,812/-
G)
9 Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-
consortium (H)
10 Compensation for loss of love and Rs. 1,00,000/-
affection (I)
11 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
(J)
12 Compensation towards funeral Rs. 25,000/-
expenses (K)
13 Total compensation Rs. 32,03,812/-
(G+H+I+J+K=L)
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
Analysis
9. Mr. Shadab Khan, counsel for owner/UPSRTC, contented that the
bus was not involved in the accident and evidence of bus driver/Nawab
Singh ('R1W1') was not considered. Further, no eyewitness was
produced by the claimants to prove negligence of bus driver/Nawab
Singh. Reliance on evidence of Mukesh ('PW-1') was misplaced, since
he was not an eyewitness. Thus, there was no conclusive basis for
finding on the issue of negligence by the Tribunal.
10. To this aspect, counsel for claimants countered by stating that the
assessment was basis preponderance of probabilities. An eyewitness had
been produced in the inquiry proceedings. Moreover, no protest petition
had been filed by bus driver/Nawab Singh that he had been falsely
implicated and that he had been apprehended by the police at that time.
11. To arrive at the conclusion of negligence of bus driver, MACT
relied upon the evidence of PW-1, and after noting the testimony of
R1W1 discarded the same as not reliable.
12. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, who was the brother-in-law of the deceased
presented himself as PW-1. He stated that he was going towards
Ghaziabad when the accident occurred. He stated that he was an
eyewitness to the accident and he saw the offending vehicle come from
behind, since his brother-in-law was driving in front of his scooter and a
distance of 50 to 100 meters was there between his scooter and the
deceased's motorcycle. His statement was recorded by the police on the
day of accident after about 20 to 30 minutes and the FIR was registered
at his behest.
13. He stated that the deceased's head was crushed and he tried to help
his injured brother-in-law by lifting his head. Thereafter, police took the
injured/Sachin Yadav to the hospital with the help of father of deceased,
who had also arrived at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was
not present at the spot, and that he was deposing only because he was
related to the deceased.
14. Contrary to this, R1W1 stated in his evidence by way of
examination-in-chief, that he was driving the bus with due care from
from Delhi to Fatehpur Marg and after reaching near Vijay Nagar More
at about 2:45 pm, he saw two motorcycle riders collide with each other
and fall down on the road. There was a traffic signal, due to which he
stopped the bus. Suddenly, a group of 8 to 10 people came together,
pulled R1W1 and gave him beatings mercilessly. In the meantime, the
police came and he tried to make them understand, but the police did not
pay heed and implicated him in the matter. He stated that he was not
responsible for the accident.
15. In his cross-examination, he confirmed that he was apprehended
by the police and was released on bail, and that he was given beatings by
public persons near the spot of accident. He stated that he had not filed
any protest petition with respect to him being implicated.
16. Perusal of the FIR would show that it was registered at the behest
of PW-1/Mukesh Kumar at 15:40 hours, while the accident had occurred
at about 14:40 hours. In his statement before the police, Mukesh Kumar
stated that he and his sister were coming on a scooter behind the
deceased, and they were eye-witnesses to the accident. The charge sheet
is also on record in respect of FIR No. 625/2011. As per the Mechanical
Inspection Report ('MIR'), the bus was examined and signs of bumps on
both sides were reported.
17. Moreover, R1W1 was facing trial and had not filed any protest
petition against the charges which were framed against him. PW-
1/Mukesh Kumar was an eyewitness and his testimony has not been
displaced in the cross-examination.
18. R1W1's testimony to counter this statement could not be
substantiated, since there was no second motorcycle which ever formed
part of the record, and it was an admission that he was beaten up by the
public and apprehended immediately by the police. Further, the criminal
proceedings had clearly implicated him and no protest petition had been
filed. Combination of these circumstances would be enough for the
Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion on preponderance of probabilities,
regarding the negligence of driver/Nawab Singh.
19. Counsel for claimants has stated that R1W1 is a tortfeasor and his
evidence cannot be easily believed. Submission made by the counsel for
claimants, that there was no reason why the bus driver was beaten up, if
he was not responsible for the accident, is tenable and acceptable to this
Court.
20. Applying the test of preponderance of probability, the Tribunal
was right in arriving at the conclusion that the death was caused due to
injuries sustained in the accident due to the negligence of driver.
21. Reliance placed by Mr. Shadab Khan, counsel for owner/UPSRTC
on the decision of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal &
Others, 2007, 5 SCC 428 would not be apposite considering that the
claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
which covers fault liability, the burden of proof being on the claimants.
The Supreme Court essentially opined that the issue of negligence has to
be proved. Considering that the Tribunal's duty under an inquiry is to
base their conclusion on preponderance of probabilities, no disservice
has been done to this aspect of proving negligence; the burden stood
discharged by the claimants.
22. As regards compensation, counsel for owner/UPSRTC contended
that the monthly income of Rs.16,044/- has been wrongly taken, as the
salary slip had not been approved by employer and leave allowance
ought to have been deducted from the income. Aside from travel
allowance, house rent allowance ('HRA'), special allowance, Employee
State Insurance ('ESI'), Provident Fund and bonus have not been
deducted. Reliance in this regard was placed on UPSRTC v. Raj Rani
2024:DHC:10079 where deductions towards washing allowance, cycle
allowance, transport allowance were made by this Court.
23. Further, it was submitted that as per records, date of birth of the
deceased was not clear and therefore, multiplier of 17 should not have
been taken. Also that, future prospects should not have been awarded at
50%.
24. It was also submitted that alignment in relation to compensation
should be done as per National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder
Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780. Considering the educational qualifications of
wife of deceased, she was not a dependent and interest of 9% was
excessive.
25. To counter this, counsel for claimants stated that future prospects
should be granted at 50%, considering that the deceased was 28 years of
age as per his Aadhar Card, Ex. PW3/3 and there is parity between self-
employed and a permanent job. Multiplier of 17 was correctly taken as
per his age. Loss of consortium has not been granted to 4 dependents.
26. In relation to the salary, testimony of PW-2, who was the HR
manager at Visiocorp Motherson Ltd, the company where the deceased
was employed, was taken into account. As per PW-2, the last drawn
salary of deceased was Rs. 16,044/- and salary slip had been produced as
Ex. PW-2/5.
27. Letter dated 13th May 2011, Ex.PW-2/4 has been placed on record
signed by the Head of the factory where the deceased was working, as
per which his monthly compensation had been revised to Rs.16,044/-
w.e.f. 01st April 2011. Since, the accident occurred on 27th December
2011, there was no error by the Tribunal in taking this into account.
28. Reliance on Raj Rani (supra) shall not be of much assistance to
owner/UPSRTC, as this Court had deducted washing allowance, cycle
allowance, transport allowance and dearness allowance on travel
allowance, since those were the perks enjoyed by the deceased while he
was working there and cannot be enjoyed after his death.
29. On the issue of allowances, reliance may be placed upon
Meenakshi v Oriental Insurance Company, (2024) SCC OnLine SC
1872, where allowances under head of transport allowance, house rent
allowance, Provident Fund, special allowances were added for
considering benchmark income. While considering addition of house rent
allowance to the income of deceased, the Supreme Court observed as
under:
"7. As per the service conditions and pay scales of the
Government officials, the house rent allowance is payable
between 8% and 30% of the basic salary. Therefore, the
house rent allowance is paid in a fixed ratio proportionate
to the basic salary. With the increase in basic salary, the
quantum of house rent allowance also increases
proportionately. The flexible benefit plan and Company
contribution admissible to a person employed in private
service would also not remain static and are bound to
increase with the length of service. The only bone of
contention in this appeal is whether perquisites/allowances
referred to above should also be taken into account while
applying the future prospects. Therefore, entirely excluding
these components from the salary of the employee for
applying the principle of future prospects would be
unjustified. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding
that these allowances cannot be ignored and have to be
added to the salary when assessing the rise in income due to
future prospects of a person employed in private service.
This Court has carved out a rational formula to fix the
percentage of rise of income by future prospects. In the case
at hand, the said percentage has been fixed at 50% by both,
the Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the Division Bench
of the High Court. In view of the discussion made supra, the
perquisites/allowances have to be added to the basic salary
of the deceased before applying the rise by future prospects.
(emphasis added)
30. As regards allowances under transport, Provident Fund and special
allowance, the Supreme Court in Meenakshi (supra), observed as under:
"9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini [Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this Court held that,
allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house
rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and
special allowance ought to be added while considering the
basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the
dependency factor.
10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible
benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund
have to be included in the salary of the deceased while
applying the component of rise in income by future
prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident
Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components
into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by
future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating
the total compensation payable to the appellant."
(emphasis added)
31. This has also been considered by the Supreme Court in Kavita
Devi & Ors v Sunil Kumar& Anr 2025 INSC 938. Relevant observation
of the Supreme Court is extracted as under:
"17. This Court has consistently held in case of the
allowances which are included in the component of salary
of the deceased, Tribunal has to take into consideration
these allowances as they were used for supporting the
family. The claimants have to show that these allowances
were regularly received and used for the family's benefit.
Further, while determining whether the allowances form a
part of the salary or not, the Tribunal by looking into the
facts of each case and by considering the extent of
dependency of the claimants on the salary of the deceased
including the allowances, have to determine whether these
allowances should be excluded from determination of the
income of the deceased. If the answer of the Tribunal is in
affirmative, then the allowances may be excluded for
determination of loss of dependency. If the Tribunal
answers the above point in negative, then the Tribunal has
to include the allowances for computation of income of the
deceased, thus determining the loss of dependency."
(emphasis added)
32. In view of the same, deduction of Rs. 800/- made by the MACT,
would not be accounted for and the benchmark income would be taken as
Rs.16,044/-.
33. This Court has perused the various salary slips produced on
record, which show that salary earned by deceased was consistently
increasing as noted in the Letter of Traineeship dated 10th November,
2008, where monthly salary of deceased was noted as Rs. 8,634/-.
Thereafter, as per the appointment letter effective from 1st April 2010,
the salary of deceased was Rs. 12,302/-. Thereafter, from 1st April, 2011,
his monthly salary was increased to Rs.16,044/- as a token of
appreciation. Further, the progressive career plan of deceased, as
prepared by the employer, is extracted as under:
34. As regards the issue of future prospects in cases of a permanent
employee, some guidance has been provided by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Anjum Ansari v. R. Rajesh Rao, 2024
SCC OnLine MP 9613, wherein the Court held that, in view of the
principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), it is not correct to state that
only a government servant would be treated as having a permanent job.
In the facts of that case, the Court noted that the deceased was working
as an Assistant Professor at Corporate Institute of Science & Technology,
Bhopal, and that the salary drawn by the deceased was subject to periodic
revisions/hikes, therefore, he was considered to be in permanent job. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow.
"8. In this court's opinion, above issue stands settled by Five
Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : AIR
2017 SC 5157 as under:--
55. "Presently, we come to the issue of addition of
future prospects to determine the multiplicand.
56. In Santosh Devi ((2012) 6 SCC 421 : AIR 2012 SC
2185) the Court has not accepted as a principle that a
self-employed person remains on a fixed salary
throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the
cost of living which affects everyone without making
any distinction between the rich and the poor.
Emphasis has been laid on the extra efforts made by
this category of persons to generate additional income.
That apart, judicial notice has been taken of the fact
that the salaries of those who are employed in private
sectors also with the passage of time increase
manifold. In Rajesh s case, the Court had added 15%
in the case where the victim is between the age group
of 15 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just,
equitable, fair and reasonable. This addition has been
made in respect of self-employed or engaged on fixed
wages.
57........... In such an adjudication, the duty of the
tribunal and the courts is difficult and hence, an
endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of
future prospects on the proven income at present As far
as future prospects are concerned, them has been
standardisation keeping in view the principle of
certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the
principle of "standardisation" so that a specific and
certain multiplicand is determined for applying the
multiplier on the basis of age.
59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we
are disposed to think when we accept the principle of
standardisation, there is really no rationale not to
apply the said principle to the self-employed or a
person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine
of actual income at the time of death and not to add
any amount with regard to future prospects to the
income for the purpose of determination of
multiplicand would be unjust The determination of
income while computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will come within
the ambit and sweep of just compensation as
postulated under Section 168 of the Act In case of a
deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt
grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable
certainty. But to slate that the legal representatives of a
deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be
entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the
purpose of computation of compensation would be
inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction
between the two in that event would be certainty on the
one hand and staticness on the other. One may
perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on
the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a
perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise
does affect a self-employed person; and that apart
there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's
income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a
salaried person on permanent job when increases
because of grant of increments and pay revision or for
some other change in service conditions, there is
always a competing attitude in the private sector to
enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the
employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is
bound to gamer his resources and raise his
charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To
have the perception that he is likely to remain static
and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the
fundamental concept of human attitude which always
intends to live with dynamism and move and change
with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that
there cannot be certainty in addition of future
prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a
person having a permanent job yet the said perception
does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to
think that there can be some degree of difference as
regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to
in respect of the legal representatives who claim on
behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a
person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But
not to apply the principle of standardisation on the
foundation of perceived lack of certainty would
tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of
ground reality.........
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:
(i) XXX XXX XXX XXX
(ii) XXX XXX XXX XXX
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be
made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the
deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read
as actual salary less tax.
(iv) 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. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation................"
9. Thus, from observations as well as principle of law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), it is
clearly evident that if a person is in such a job wherein his
salary is increased periodically/receives annual increment
etc., then, such person would be treated as being in
"permanent job". Hence, in view of principle of law laid
down in Pranay Sethi (Supra), it is not correct that only
government servant would be treated as being in
"permanent job"."
(emphasis added)
35. Considering that he was below 40 years of age and had a fixed
income job in a private company, therefore, future prospects should be
50% as considered by the Tribunal, along with a multiplier of 17. During
cross-examination, PW-3/wife of deceased stated that she was holding an
M.Sc and B.Ed. degree however she was a homemaker, therefore, she
would be considered as a dependent. Considering that the dependents
were minor daughter, wife, and mother, deduction of 1/3 towards
personal living expenses made by the Tribunal, was correct and
sustainable.
36. As regards compensation towards loss of love and affection, same
would be not counted as per the decision in Satindar Kaur (supra) as this
head has been subsumed under loss of consortium. Relevant observations
of the Supreme Court are extracted as under:
"34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide
uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss
of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts
have been awarding compensation for both loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution
Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , has recognised only
three conventional heads under which compensation can be
awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153], this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to
award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a
legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a
separate head."
(emphasis added)
37. In respect of conventional heads, funeral expenses would be Rs.
15,000/- and loss of estate would also be Rs. 15,000/- as per Pranay
Sethi (supra). Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are extracted
as under:
"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 added)
38. Loss of consortium would be granted for 4 family members at Rs.
1,60,000/- [Rs. 40,000/-x 4] as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130.
39. As regards the interest rate, there is nothing unreasonable in the
grant of 9%, as these are standard rates of fixed deposit interest provided
by the nationalized banks as per Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') policy.
This aspect has discussed by the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum
& Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC in paragraph 24
where an interest rate of 9% was taken.
40. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under:
S. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by
No. Tribunal the Court
1 Monthly income of deceased Rs. 15,244/- Rs.16,044/-
(A)
2 Add: Future Prospects (B) @ Rs. 7,622/- Rs. 8,022/-
50%
3 Annual Income of deceased Rs. 2,74,392/- Rs. 2,88,792/-
[(A+B) x 12]
4 Less: Tax of Rs. 12,439/- (C) Rs. 2,61,953/- Rs. 2,76,353/-
5 Less: Personal expenses of Rs. Rs. 87,317/- Rs. 92,117/-
deceased (D)
6 Loss of dependency (C - D) = E Rs. 1,74,636/- Rs. 1,84,236/-
8 Total loss of dependency (E x F Rs. 29,68,812/- Rs. 31,32,012/-
= G)
9 Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/-
consortium (H)
10 Compensation for loss of love Rs. 1,00,000/- Nil
and affection (I)
11 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
(J)
12 Compensation towards funeral Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (K)
13 Total compensation Rs. 32,03,812/- Rs. 33,22,012/-
(G+H+I+J+K=L)
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%
Conclusion
41. The appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
i. Vide order dated 17th December 2013, this Court had stayed the
execution of the impugned award subject to deposit of entire
awarded amount, along with interest with the Registrar General of
this Court. Upon deposit, 65% of the awarded amount was to be
released in favour of claimants as per the terms and conditions as
fixed by the Tribunal. The balance amount will now be released as
per terms and conditions fixed by the Tribunal.
ii. Enhanced amount of Rs. 1,18,200/- along with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of filing of petition be deposited by
owner/UPSRTC within a period of 4 weeks before the Registrar
General and same shall be apportioned and released to claimants
as per the directions of the Tribunal.
iii. Statutory deposit (if any) be refunded to owner/UPSRTC.
42. Pending application, if any, are rendered infructuous
43. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
APRIL 01, 2026/RK/sp
