Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90608 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 967 of 2008 Appellant :- Smt. Jagmala Devi And Others Respondent :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sharve Singh,A.L. Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Prakash Srivastava,Bhriguram Ji Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Arun Prakash, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Bhriguram Ji, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the claimants- appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2008 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/M.A.C.T., District Allahabad, in M.A.C.P. No.585 of 2000 (Smt. Jagmala Devi and others vs. Vinod Chandra Pandey and another) by which compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-appellants on account of death of Kamlesh Singh, who died in a road accident, which was occurred on 12.02.2000. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that compensation awarded by the claimants-appellants is too meager. The accident was occurred on account of negligence of driver of jeep and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding 50-50% negligence of both the drivers. The driver of jeep was driven the jeep in a very rash and negligent manner and had came wrong side and hit the motorcycle. The Claims Tribunal has erred in deciding issued nos. 1 and 4 holding contributory negligence of the deceased to the accident of 50%. The accident was occurred on account of sole negligence of jeep driver and there was no negligence of deceased and the Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% compensation on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, whereas there are five dependents on the income of the deceased and deduction would be 1/4 as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.). The age of the deceased was below 40 years and claimants-appellants are entitled for 40% future prospects but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and only Rs. 9,000/- was awarded for non pecuniary damages. No other ground has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that it was a case of head on collusion and drivers of both the vehicle were equally negligent and responsible for the accident. The Claims Tribunal after considering the entire evidence which are available on record had recorded the finding that both the drivers were negligent to the extent of 50-50%. 5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It was the case of the claimants-appellants before the Tribunal that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of jeep. The claimants had produced Lalla Singh Yadav as PW-2, who was the eye witness of the accident. The PW- 2 has stated on oath that the jeep was driving by its driver very rashly and negligently and he came from the wrong side and hit the motorcycle and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The tribunal has disbelieved the statement of PW-2 merely on the ground that he was not named in the F.I.R. as well as in charge-sheeted as witness. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue nos. 1 and 4 has recorded the finding that it was a case of head on collusion of both the vehicles and the driver of both the vehicles was equally responsible and 50% compensation was deducted on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has failed to consider that deceased was driving the motor cycle, whereas the offending jeep came wrong side and hit the motorcycle and more so, the jeep was big vehicle the responsibility of jeep driver was more to avoid the accident. The negligence of jeep driver has been fixed 60% and 40% of deceased, who was driving the motorcycle. So far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, there are five dependents on the income of the deceased and as such deduction would be 1/4 as per judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). The claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 70,000/- for non pecuniary damages as provided by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673. 7. In view of above, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :- 1. Monthly Income : Rs. 3,000/- 2. Annual Income : Rs. 3,000//- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/- 3. Future prospects : (40%) = Rs.14,400/- 4. Total annual income : Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 14,400 = Rs. 50,400/- 5. Deduction towards personal expenses (1/4th) : Rs. 50,400/- - Rs. 12,600/- = Rs. 37,800/- 6. Multiplier applicable (17) : Rs.37,800/- x 17 = Rs. 6,42,600/- 7. Deduction towards contributory negligence (40%) Rs. 6,42,600/- - Rs. 2,57,040/- = 3,85,560/- 8. Non pecuniary damages - Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 3,85,560 + Rs. 70,000/- = 4,55,560/- 8. The first appeal from order is hereby allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,13,000/- to Rs.4,55,560/-. The claimants-appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of award of Claims Tribunal i.e. 22.01.2008. 9. The respondent No.1- Oriental Assurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay enhanced amount alongwith the interest to the claimants within two months from today. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad