Smt. Priyanka Dwivedi vs Sri Raj Narayan And 3 Others

1. Heard the counsel for the appellant, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Amit Singh the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ram Singh who appears for the opposite party no.4 and has also filed the cross objection.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by means of the award dated 05.12.2014. The cross objection has been filed by the respondent no.4 stating that the proportionate share of the amount awarded to the respondent no.4, the mother of the deceased, should be enhanced.

3. The facts, in brief are that the deceased, who is working and running a shop met with an accident, which resulted in his death. The appellant, the legally wedded wife of the deceased filed a claim petition in which the mother and father of the deceased were also impleaded. The Tribunal framed as many as six issues. While deciding the issue no.1, it was held that the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle being Scorpio Car No.UP 35E-5033. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the age of the deceased was proved to be 27 years as per the Claim Petition, based upon which a multiplier of 16 was applied and the total compensation payable was assessed at Rs.3,84,000/- treating the income of the deceased as Rs.36000/- per annum. In addition to the said, the funeral expense of Rs.3000/- and loss of consortium of Rs.5000/- was awarded to the claimant. Thus, the total claim amount was assessed at Rs.3,92,000/-, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the respondent no.4 and the balance was directed to be paid to the claimant, the wife of the deceased.

4. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs.36000/- per annum whereas the minimum wages at that point was Rs.4163/- per month which ought to have been awarded in absence of any evidence. It is further argued that the enhancement of future aspects ought to have been awarded at 40% of the income, which has not been done. It is further argued that the loss of consortium ought to have been awarded @Rs.48,500/- in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others; (2018) 18 SCC 130. It is further argued that the amount of funeral expenses awarded at Rs.3000/- is also on the lower side in view of the law as explained in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) TAC 673.

5. The counsel for the respondent no.4, while arguing his cross objection, argues that the share granted to the respondent no.4 is less particularly as, the claimant has now remarried and is not financially dependent.

6. The counsel for the Insurance Company argues that the respondent no.4, apart from the family pension, on account of her husband's death, is also a retired employee and is getting her own pension.

7. In the light of the arguments raised and recorded above, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.36000/- which is less than the minimum wages, which at that point of time was Rs.4163/- per month and in the absence of any evidence, the minimum income ought to have been assessed at Rs.4163/- per month. The Tribunal has further erred on enhancement on account of future prospects, which ought to have done at 40% of the income of the deceased in terms of the law as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Tribunal ought to have granted funeral compensation at Rs.18,500/- and the loss of consortium to the appellant as well as to the respondent no.4 is at Rs.48,500/- per head in view of the law as laid down in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra).

8. Finding the impugned award to be erroneous and contrary to law as declared in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the award is modified to the extent as under :

Sl. No.

Head

Compensation awarded

1.

Monthly income of the deceased

Rs.4163/- per month

2.

An addition of 40% is to be added towards loss of future prospects

Rs.1665/- per month

3.

Total Monthly Income

Rs.5828/- per month

4.

Net yearly income

Rs.69,936/-

5.

Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses

Rs.69,936 x 1/3rd=Rs.23,312/-

After deduction :

Rs.69936 ? Rs.23312 =Rs.46624/-

6.

Applying multiplier of '17'

Rs.46624 x 17 =

Rs.792608/-

7.

Amount under conventional heads:

(i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/-

(ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra)

(iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per person (Rs.48,500 x 2) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra)

Rs.18,500 + Rs.18,500 + Rs.97000 = Rs.134000/-

8.

Total amount of compensation

(Sr.No.7 + Sr.No.8)

Rs.7,92,608+ Rs.1,34,000

Rs.9,26,608/-

+ interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment

9. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of three months from today. The amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimant.

10. The respondent no.4 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,48,500/- and the balance would be payable to the appellant, the wife of the deceased.

11. The appeal is disposed off in terms of the said order.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

May 6, 2026

VNP/-