Patna High Court
Jyoti Devi And Ors vs Lalan Kumar Rai And Ors on 14 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.441 of 2017
======================================================
1. Jyoti Devi and Ors W/o Late Umesh Gandhi @ Umes Prasad Gandhi,
2. Riya Kumari, Minor,
3. Priya Kumari, Minor,
4. Simaran Kumari, Minor,
5. Ujjawal Kumar, Minor, All minor son and daughters of Late Umesh Gandhi
alias Umes Prasad Gandhi, all minors son and daught
6. Mahendra Prasad, S/o Late Sachida Nand Prasad,
7. Uma Devi, W/o Mahendra Prasad, All resident of Village- Sakarpura, P.S.-
Bakhari, Dist- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Lalan Kumar Rai and Ors resident of Village- Patpura, P.S.- Bibhutipur,
Dist- Samastipur, Owner of Vehicle bearing its Registration No. BR 06
P/1721 Bus.
2. Legal Manager, ICICI, Lombad General Insuarance Co. Ltd Lacknow UP.
3. Smt. Shobha Mishra, null resident of Village- Deopura, P.S.- Naokothi, Dist-
Begusarai. Owner of the Bolero bearing its registration No. BR 9G/4581.
4. Legal Manager, Reliance General Insuarance Company Ltd. Bandar
Bagicha, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent no.4 : Mrs. Archana Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Alok Shahi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 14-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well
as the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "MV Act") on behalf of appellants for enhancing
the compensation amount awarded to the appellants/claimants by
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
2/17
the learned Additional District Judge-II cum-Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as "learned
Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 116 of 2010 vide judgment dated
28. 04. 2016
and award dated 14.12.2016.
3. The learned Tribunal held that the appellants
are entitled to receive Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation and
accordingly the Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd./ respondent no. 2 and Legal Manager
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./ respondent no. 4 has
been directed to make payment of the compensation amount as
per the order forthwith, from the date of filing of the claim
petition within three months from the receipt of the judgment of
the learned Tribunal.
4. The details of the calculation of compensation
amount made by the learned Tribunal are as under:
Sr. Heads Calculation Net amount
no.
1. Monthly Income Rs. 100/-*30 Rs. 3,000/-
2. Annual Income Rs. 3,000/-*12 Rs. 36,000/-
3. 1/3rd deduction Rs. 12,000/-
towards personal
and living expenses
4. Deceased aged Rs. 20,000 * Rs.
about 35 years 17 3,40,000/-
Multiplier of 17 is
applicable
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
5. Total amount of Rs.
compensation 4,00,000/-
5. The brief facts of this case are that on
08.07.2010 at 08:00 pm, on the Samastipur Rosda main road at
Toofan Chowk under Rosda police station of district-
Samastipur, the drivers of coach bus no.-BR06P/1721 and
Bolero jeep no.-KRG/4581 caused an accident by driving their
vehicles rashly and carelessly. As a result, one of the passengers
of the Bolero jeep, Umesh Prasad Gandhi, was seriously injured
and died on the same night during treatment in Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur. A case related to this accident was registered in
Angarghat police station case no.-31 of 2010 and the
postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Umesh Prasad
Gandhi was done in Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. The deceased
was a 35-year-old educated person at the time of the alleged
accident who used to run a coaching institute and earn Rs.
10,000 per month and since the deceased was a member of the
Scheduled Caste and was educated, his future was bright and he
was going to be appointed in the Bihar Police Service as his
father was already a Sub-Inspector of Police. The claimants have
suffered irreparable loss due to the death of the deceased. He
alone has suffered loss of income of more than Rs. 10,000. Rs.
10,200 were spent on his treatment. Rs. 50,000 were spent on
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
bringing his body and funeral expenses. Rs. 50,000 have been
claimed as consolation and compensation. Rs. 2.5 lakhs have
been claimed for the compensation of the wife of the claimant
and his children who became widows and orphans respectively,
taking the total amount to Rs. 13,60,000/-. But in the event of
court fee not being paid, a claim of only Rs. 5 lakh has been
presented, for which it has been prayed that the compensation be
given at the rate of 12% annual interest from the date of filing
the suit.
6. Moreover, the written statements have been
filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4. Opponent no. 3
has filed a written statement stating that he does not accept the
claim of the claimants and has stated that his Bolero jeep was
insured in favour of opposite party no. 4 on the date of the
incident and the insurance was effective. The opposite party has
also stated that the driver of the said vehicle was not at fault in
the alleged accident and the driver of the said bus himself caused
the Bolero jeep to crash by driving rashly and carelessly, due to
which the opposite party's Bolero jeep was badly damaged and it
has been stated that while this opposite party is not responsible
for the accident, only opposite party no. 1 and 2 are responsible
for the entire accident and they are responsible for paying any
kind of compensation.
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
6.i. It has been submitted by the opposite party in
his written statement that the claim is not tenable under any
circumstances. This jeep has also admitted the alleged accident
and stated that the accident occurred between his bus and a
Bolero jeep. Therefore, the insurance companies of both these
vehicles are entitled to pay half the compensation each.
Opponent No. 4 has stated in his written statement that the claim
of the claimants is not maintainable under any circumstances.
This opponent has also admitted the alleged accident and stated
that this accident occurred due to collision between the said bus
and the Bolero jeep. Therefore, the insurance companies of both
these vehicles are entitled to pay half the compensation each. No
certificate of the age of the deceased has been submitted.
6.ii. As far as the income of the deceased is
concerned, it has been stated about the deceased that he used to
earn ten thousand rupees per month by running a coaching
center. To prove the authenticity of such income, the claimants
should have submitted the income tax return of the deceased
related to his income. At the time of the alleged accident, the
drivers did not have valid driving license, fitness and other
necessary documents, which is a clear violation of the terms of
insurance. If any order for compensation is passed, then if the
accident is found to have been caused by driving the vehicle in
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
violation of the terms of insurance, an order should be made to
recover the amount of compensation paid from the opponent
vehicle owner. In the absence of any other documentary
evidence, the age of the deceased as assessed by the doctor
during postmortem shall be applicable. Opponent No. 2 has
stated in his written statement that the claim is not maintainable
in any way.
6.iii. The fact that the driver of the said bus of the
deceased Umesh Prasad Gandhi caused the accident by driving
the bus fast and carelessly has been denied. This opponent has
also accepted that the responsibility of the drivers of both the
vehicles charged is half-half as a result of the accident that
occurred due to the joint negligence of the two vehicles. The
driver of the bus that caused the accident has not been given a
driving license, permit, fitness certificate etc. In such a situation,
this opponent is not entitled to be paid any kind of compensation
amount for the alleged accident. If any order for payment of
compensation is given, then the amount paid as compensation
should be recovered as a result of violation of the terms of
insurance. Permission should be given to recover it from the
owner of the vehicle that caused the accident. The deceased was
an unemployed person. He had no means of income. The age
and income of the deceased has been wrongly described and in
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
the absence of proof of such income, the indicative income will
have to be chosen. It is also stated that the amount of
compensation demanded by the claimants has been exaggerated.
7. On the basis of pleading and submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i) Is the claim as framed sustainable?
ii) Whether the alleged accident was caused
due to negligence, speeding and
carelessness of the drivers of the said bus
and the Bolero jeep separately or whether
the alleged accident was caused due to joint
negligence, speeding and carelessness of the
drivers of both the vehicles?
iii) What was the income of the deceased
and due to the death of the deceased what
loss has been suffered by the claimants?
iv) Are the claimants entitled to get the
demanded compensation amount along with
interest? If yes, then how much and from
whom?
v) Are the claimants entitled for any other
relief?
8. The claimants in support of its case have
submitted both oral and documentary evidences. As far as oral
evidence presented on behalf of the claimants is concerned,
evidence of four witnesses has been presented, out of which
claimant witness no. 1 Vijay Kumar Poddar, claimant witness
no. 2 Mohd. Maki Hasan, claimant witness no. 3 claimant Jyoti
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
Devi herself, claimant witness no. 4 Mahendra Prasad, claimant
witness no. 7 father of the deceased. All these oral witnesses
have certified the claim of the claimants in their evidence. As
documentary evidence on behalf of the claimants, exhibits are-
final certificate of Angarghat police station case 31 of 2010,
exhibit-2 postmortem report, exhibit-3 certificate of the
headman, exhibit-4 FIR, exhibit-5 and 5/1 copy of insurance
policy of both the vehicles causing the accident, exhibit-7
identity card, exhibit-8 admit card of B.Sc., exhibit-9 certificate
issued by Indian Scouts and Guides, Bihar, exhibit-10 mark
sheet of I.A. and exhibit-11 certificate of computer education.
9. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that
the Learned tribunal awarded inadequate compensation to the
claimants/appellants and not which they are entitled under law
therefore, impugned Judgment and Award so far related to
quantum of compensation, rate of interest and are bad in law and
on facts require enhancement of compensation mentioned the
fact and circumstances. Further he submitted that the learned
court below has erred in holding that deceased was earning Rs.
30,000/- P.A. ignoring the certificate issued by Anchal Office,
Teghra in which it has been mentioned that the earning PA of
deceased was Rs. 96,000/- which is on the record. It is also
submitted that there is no occasion for the learned court below to
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
discredit the certificate issued by Anchal office and the learned
court below while calculating the amount of compensation
should have relied upon the certificate issued by the Anchal
Office Teghra. Moreover all the witnesses have categorically
been stated that deceased was computer operator and was
earning Rs. 10,000/- Per month.
9.i. Further it is submitted that the learned court
below should not have gone into the technicality of Evidence
Act rather should consider that while deciding the claim case it
is beneficial legislation. learned court below should have
considered while awarding just and proper compensation is a
welfare legislation and the hyper technicalities, mystic maybes,
procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play and can not
be ground to defeat the social purpose of granting just and
proper compensation It is also submitted that the learned court
below while deciding claim Case under the Motor Vehicle Act
should have taken into consideration that granting of just and
proper compensation is just to ameliorate the misery of the
victim of the vehicular accidents and to save them from
succumbing to the social evils. It is just a source of aid to the
claimants who have lost their bred earner.
9.ii. It is further submitted that the learned court
below should have appraise that strict proof and strict links are
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
not required. It is also submitted that learned court below should
have relied upon Ext-1 Certificate granted by the Anchal Office,
Teghra mentioning therein that the earning of the deceased was
Rs. 96,000/- per annum. It is also submitted that learned court
below did not consider the future prospects of the deceased nor
dealt with in impugned Judgment. It is well settled law that due
to escalation of price index, the future prospect of the deceased
has to be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that at
the time of an accident the age of the deceased was 35 years as
per Postmortem report, in this view of the matter the future
prospect of the deceased has to be taken into consideration by
adding 50% of the original income of the deceased as the age of
the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years.
9.iii. Learned tribunal has not given the benefit of
future prospect as the age of deceased is 35 years so 40% future
prospect should be given as per Hon'ble Apex court decision
given in Pranay Sethi Case(2017) 16 SCC 680. He further
submitted that the personal expense deduction was taken as 1/3rd
which is not in accordance with settled principle of law in this
regard, as number of claimants are five, so personal expense
deduction will be 1/5th.
9.iv. He further submitted that learned trial Court
ought to have allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
the date of the filling of the claim case i.e., 17.08.2010. In view
of the decision of Apex court reported in A.C.J.-2594 Kishan
Gopal and others Versus Lala and others. In the aforesaid case
no interest has been awarded which is against the law and
violation of Section 171 of the M.V. Act. Further, the learned
court below did allow the statutory pecuriory damages as held
by the Apex court in the case of Rajesh Versus Rajbir Singh
and others as such as funeral expenses, loss of consortium and
loss of love and affection to the Parent, wife and minor children.
10. Learned counsel for respondents submitted
that the present memo of appeal is not maintainable the appeal is
preferred on wrong and misconceived notions. He further
submitted that income and source of income as claimant has not
been proved by claimants as such income has been disbelieved.
The author of the certificate in respect to income and education
has not examined as such income and source of income has not
been proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel relied
upon the judgment of Shyam Nath Sah v. Shankar Kumar
Gupta 2019 6 BLJ 628; 2018 0 Supreme (Pat) 987 decided by
this Hon'ble court for the above mentioned point.
10.i. He further submitted that the income of Rs.
96,000/- as claimed has been disbelieved in want of legal
evidence. The case has to be allowed taking into consideration
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
the minimum wages prevalent during the period for which
learned counsel relied upon the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. v.
Md. Tabbar and Anr. reported in 2008 0 ACJ 1488 and Kirti
and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance company Ltd. reported in 2021
0 ACJ 1. The case of the claimant has been disbelieved as
material on record is not consistent in respect to age which
would precisely mean that claimants are not coming with a clean
hand. The date of accident is 08.07.2010 and on that time Rs.
87/- was the income under the Minimum Wages Act.
10.ii. Learned counsel further contended that the
income certificate issued has to be disbelieved and in absence of
any documentary evidence notional income or minimum wages
would be taken into consideration for calculating compensation
and relied upon judment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sanichari Devi & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Anr. 2012 4
BBCJ 429; 2012 0 Supreme (Pat) 685 & Dukhni Devi v.
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 0
ACJ 2691. As per the case of the claimant the deceased at best
would be an unskilled labour.
10.iii. The learned counsel further submitted that
the multiplier applied is incorrect and appropriate multiplier
would be 16 and claimants have also claimed amount under
conventional head, interest and future prospect. It also has been
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
submitted that it is well settled that compensation should be just
and not a bonanza and it has been held that no interest can be
awarded on the amount under the head future prospect. He relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United
India Insurance company Ltd. v. Inderjeet & Ors., 2024 0
Supreme (J&K) 170 & judgment passed by Gauhati High Court
in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Rumi Barman &
Ors., MAC App. 77 of 2017.
10.iv. He further submitted that interest 6%
would be applicable on the principal compensation amount
already paid and not on the amount under the head future
prospect or amount under conventional head. The constitution
Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has allowed on three
conventional head under which compensation can be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has adopted the
argument of the Respondent no. 2 i.e., ICICI.
11. In the present case, the occurrence of the
accident and liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute.
The only issue to be decided before this court is whether the
appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation and if so, to what extent?
12. The term compensation is a comprehensive
term which includes a claim for the damages. The claimant in a
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
claim for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Act,
is entitled for just compensation which has to be equitable and
fair. The loss of life and limb can never be compensated in an
equal measure but the Act is a social piece of legislation with
object to facilitate the claimants to get redress the loss of the
member of family, compensate the loss in some measure and
compensate the claimants to a reasonable extent.
13. The learned tribunal held that the age of
deceased was 35 years at the time of his death accordingly in
view of National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Seti & Ors reported
in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and Ors v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
the multiplier applicable according to his age range (31 to 35) of
deceased would be 16. With respect to future prospect, 40% of
monthly income of deceased was added in his income and
deduction of 1/5th of his actual income has been taken. There is
no dispute in this regard on behalf of the parties. It is now well-
settled and not disputed that loss of consortium would be
awarded to each claimants.
14. On the basis of judgments delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satindar
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC
780 and Rojline Nayak and Ors. Ajit Sahoo and Ors. reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901, the following amounts are
awarded as compensation under the conventional head:
Sr. Heads Calculation Compensation
no. amount
1 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 18,150/-
Enhance 10%
twice
2. Loss of Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 3,38,800/-
Consortium Enhance 10% (Rs. 48,400/- x 7)
twice
3. Funeral Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 18,150/-
Expenses Enhance 10%
twice
15. As the deceased was of 35 years and it was
not established that he was not a permanent employee, hence,
future prospects to the tune of 40% must be paid as in
accordance with para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, it is
observed that the fact and circumstances of present case is
different from that of the case referred by the learned counsel for
the respondents as in present case the income certificate has
been issued by the Circle Officer (Gazetted Officer) of the area
of the deceased which is reliable and cannot be disbelieved. As
per mandate of Bihar government, the income certificate,
residence certificate and EWS certificate all are issued by the
Circle Officer and Block Officer which is foremost reliable and
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
as per law which cannot be disbelieved.
16. Thus, the total amount of compensation
payable will be as follows:
Sr. Head Compensation Awarded
no.
1. Annual Income Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 8,000 X
12)
2. Addition of 40% towards Rs. 1,34,400/-
future prospects (Rs. 38,400 + Rs. 96,000)
3. 1/5th deduction towards Rs. 26,880/-
personal and living
expenses
4. Annual income after Rs. 1,07,520/-
deduction
5. Multiplier 16.
6. Loss of Dependency Rs. 17,20,320/-
(Rs. 1,07,520 * 16)
7. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
8. Loss of Consortium Rs. 3,38,800/-
9. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
10. Total Compensation Rs. 20,95,420/-
17. The Judgment dated 28.04.2016 and Award
dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified
to the aforesaid extent with 6% interest only on income from the
date of the filing of the claim petition. Accordingly, this appeal is
disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned
Judgment and award.
Patna High Court MA No.441 of 2017 dt.14-05-2025
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
19. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.04.2025
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date N/A
