Fatal Accidents Act| 'Court Has Jurisdiction To Quantify Damages Proportionate To Loss': Allahabad HC Awards ₹50L Compensation To Widow

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Court has wide jurisdiction to quantify damages as it may think are proportionate to the loss suffered by the claimant.

While awarding a compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs plus interest, the bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held

“Wide discretion is vested with the Court to award such damages as it may think proportionate to the loss. Since these are writ proceedings and no evidence has yet been led by the parties, we seek to adopt a rough and ready method to compute the compensation to bring a quick end to this avoidable litigation that has already suffered a procedural delay of 12 years, the writ petition having been filed within a year of the occurrence.”

The petitioner's husband, Dr. Ravindra Mohan Prasad was posted as Deputy Director, of Animal Husbandry, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur. While he was asleep at his official accommodation, a blast occurred at the storage facility of the Rural Engineering Services, Mirzapur in the adjoining premise due to which Maxphalt/Bitumen seeped into the residential premises of the deceased causing 70% burn injuries. Eventually, he succumbed to his injuries.

Though the Court had asked the State to resolve the matter, however, a twelve-member Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, though admitted the accident, denied compensation to the petitioner on grounds that the deceased, being off duty, was not covered under any existing policy.

The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, where the issue was regarding the quantification of compensation for the death of a minor arising from a tortious act of accidental fire in a 'pandal' set up by a corporation to celebrate the birth anniversary of its founder.

Though the arbitrator relied on the principle of multiplier and calculated the compensation according to the framework provided in the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Supreme Court held

“The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years' purchase.”

The Court held that standardised formulas existed under two enactments: Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which was settled by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Tranpsort Corporation & Anr. and National Insurance Company Limited. vs. Pranay Sethi and others; and Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the compensation was quantified at about Rs. 53 lakhs plus interest whereas, under Employees Compensation Act 1923, it was quantified at about Rs. 34 lakhs plus interest. The Court observed that the deceased was 52 years old with four dependents, three children and one wife. He was a government employee earning about Rs. 46,100/- per month.

Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 50 Lakh was awarded to the petitioner. The state was to pay the same within three months from the date of the order together with interest on that amount @ 6 % per annum from the date of occurrence till the date of actual payment.

Title - Shakuntala Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 494

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 494

Click Here To Read/Download Order