{"id":89265,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-09T20:28:34","modified_gmt":"2017-04-09T14:58:34","slug":"u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Court No. - 34\n\nCase :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2211 of 2006\n\nPetitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru' Regional\nManager\nRespondent :- Smt. Naima Rehman & Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- Avanish Mishra\nRespondent Counsel :- A.L. Jaiswal,Sharve Singh\n\nHon'ble Prakash Chandra Verma,J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh,J.\n<\/p>\n
A.F.R. Court No.34<\/p>\n
F.A.F. O. No. 2211 of 2006
\nU.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
\nthrough its Regional Manager Moradabad
\nRegional,     Moradabad      ————————Defendant-
\nAppellant
\nVs.\n<\/p>\n
Smt. Naima Rehman and others —————Claimant-
\nRespondents<\/p>\n
Hon. Prakash Chandra Verma, J.\n<\/p>\n
Hon. Ram Autar Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n
(Delivered by Hon. R.A.Singh,J.\n<\/p>\n
1. This First Appeal arises out of judgment and award dated
\n27.5.2006 passed by Shri P.K. Mishra, learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge\/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter
\n‘The Tribunal’), Rampur in M.A.C.P. No. 141 of 2004
\nwhereunder the claim of Rs.12,5000\/- as compensation
\nalongwith 4 % per annum interest from the date of filing of
\nthe claim petition has been allowed.\n<\/p>\n
2. Being aggrieved thereby the U.P.S.R.T.C. Appellant
\n(hereinafter the appellant) has preferred this appeal. The facts
\nof the case in a narrow compass are recapitulated herein
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petition was moved by the claimant-respondents
\nagainst appellant and two others under section 166 of Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1988, with this allegation that on 1.7.2004
\nKhalid Hussain, husband of the claimant Smt. Naima
\nRehman alongwith his brother Kamran Ahmad was coming
\nfrom Dhamora to Rampur by Motorcycle No.U.P.22-C\/0791
\nwith moderate speed on left side of the road and when he
\nreached in front of Wings & Nest Hotel at about 11.30 A.M.,
\nthe offending bus no. U.P.53L\/9942 being driven by its driver
\nrashly and negligently came from opposite direction and its
\ndriver without showing any indicator turned the said bus with
\nthe same fast speed on wrong direction towards the said Hotel
\nand collided with motorcycle, in which Khalid Hussain,
\ndriver of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and died
\nin District Hospital, Rampur due to his injuries, but pillion
\nrider Kamran Ahmad had narrow escape.\n<\/p>\n
4. It has further been alleged that deceased Khalid Hussain
\nduring his life time was working as A.G.-1(d) in Food
\nCorporation of India and drawing Rs.15,512\/- per month as
\nsalary, out of which he used to maintain his family and due to
\nhis sudden death all the petitioners were deprived of the said
\nincome of the deceased. The petitioner no.1 Smt. Naima
\nRehman, wife of the deceased and petitioners no.2 and 3,
\nbeing son and daughter claimed themselves to be his legal
\nheirs and filed claim petition for a compensation of Rs.50
\nlacs.\n<\/p>\n
5. The U.P.S.R.T.C. opposite party no.1 filed its written
\nstatement alleging that on 1.7.2004 its bus no.U.P.53L\/9942
\nwas going from Delhi to Siddharth Nagar and its driver was
\ndriving the same with moderate speed and when it reached
\nnear Wings & Nest Hotel, Rampur at about 11 a.m., its driver
\nafter giving signal turned the said bus towards the said hotel
\nand when it crossed half of pitch road, all of sudden a
\nmotorcycle being driven by its driver negligently came from
\nopposite direction, lost control over the same and collided
\nwith the bus, in which the driver of the motorcycle sustained
\ninjuries and died in District Hospital, Rampur and thus the
\naccident took place due to negligence of deceased.\n<\/p>\n
6. The opposite party no.2-United India Insurance Company
\nin its written statement expressed its ignorance about fact
\nrelating to accident in question. The Insurance Company also
\nexpressed his ignorance about the age, income and profession
\n of the deceased Khalid Hussain. It has been alleged by
\nopposite party no.2 that the said motorcycle was not insured
\nwith the Insurance Company and it was unnecessarily
\nimpleaded in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
7. The opposite party no.3 claiming himself to be the owner
\nof the said motorcycle no. U.P.22-C\/0791 filed his written
\nstatement alleging that the said motorcycle no. U.P.22-
\nC\/0791 was insured with opposite party no.2 on the date of
\nthe accident and the deceased was having effective and valid
\ndriving licence at that time. Admitting the allegations made in
\nthe claim petition opposite party no.3 alleged that at the time
\nof accident motorcycle no. U.P.22-C\/0791 of opposite party
\nno.3 was being driven by deceased with moderate speed and
\nwhen he reached in front of Wings & Nest Hotel, bus no.
\nU.P.53L\/9942 being driven by its driver negligently and
\nrashly, came from opposite direction and all of sudden, driver
\nof the said bus turned the same towards the said hotel on
\nwrong direction and collided with the motorcycle, as a result
\nof which Khalid Hussain sustained grievous injuries and he
\nsuccumbed to same.\n<\/p>\n
8. The learned tribunal framed following six issues on the
\nbasis of pleading of parties.\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent
\ndriving of bus no. U.P.53L\/9942 on 1.7.2004 at 11.30 a.m. in
\nfront of Wings & Nest Hotel within the circle of P.S. Civil
\nLines, District Rampur, in which driver of the above bus
\ncollided the same with motorcycle no. U.P.22-C\/0791 being
\ndriven by Khalid Hussain from Dhamora to Rampur in which
\nKhalid Hussain sustained injuries and ultimately died due to
\nhis injuries
\nor
\nWhether the accident took place due to motorcycle being
\ndriven by Khalid Hussain rashly and negligently, in which
\nKhalid Hussain succumbed to his injuries?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the deceased Khalid Hussain driver of motorcycle
\nwas having valid and effective driving licence at the time of
\nthe accident?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether motorcycle involved in the accident was insured
\nwith opposite party no.2 at the time of the accident?\n<\/p>\n
4. Whether the petition is barred by section 64 (V)(B) of
\nInsurance Act?\n<\/p>\n
 5. Whether the petition is barred by sections 147\/149 of
\nMotor Vehicle Act?\n<\/p>\n
6. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any amount of
\ncompensation? If so, To what amount and from whom?\n<\/p>\n
9. On behalf of petitioners, P.W.1 Kamran Ahmad was
\nexamined to prove the factum of accident as alleged in
\npetition. Opposite party no.1 examined\/ D.W.1
\nPanchmeshwar Tripathi in defence. The petitioners also filed
\ndocumentary evidence in support of allegations made in
\npetition. The learned Tribunal decided issue no.1 in favour of
\nthe petitioners holding that the accident took place due to rash
\nand negligent driving of the driver of bus no. U.P.53L\/9942,
\nwho turned the said bus without giving any signal\/indicator
\ntowards Wings & Nest Hotel on wrong direction on 1.7.2004
\nat 11.30 a.m. and collided the same with motorcycle no.
\nU.P.22-C\/0791, in which Khalid Hussain sustained grievous
\ninjuries and ultimately he died in District Hospital, Rampur,
\nduring his treatment. The learned tribunal decided issues no.2
\nand 3 in negative against the opposite parties. No argument
\nwas advanced on issues no.4 and 5 and thus these issues were
\ndecided in negative. The learned tribunal decided issue no.6
\nin favour of the petitioners and awarded Rs.12,50,000\/- as
\ncompensation on account of death of Khalid Hussain in the
\nsaid accident giving reasons therein.\n<\/p>\n
10. The opposite party no.1 has challenged said judgment and
\naward contending that this is a case of head-on-collusion but
\nthe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wrongly fastened the
\nliability upon the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
11. We have considered submissions made on behalf of
\nparties and carefully examined the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
\nthe offending bus was being driven with moderate speed and
\nwas taken turn after giving signal, but the learned tribunal
\nrecorded the findings otherwise that the bus was being driven
\nrashly and negligently. The bus could not be driven with fast
\nspeed while taking turn otherwise it could be turned turtle and
\nthus the findings recorded by the learned tribunal was not
\nbased upon cogent reasons and it completely ignored the
\npossibility of contributory negligence. It has further been
\ncontended that the deceased was not having a valid driving
\nlicence and he was not a skilled driver, at the time of the
\naccident. The learned tribunal calculated the amount of
\n compensation on the basis of gross salary of Rs.14,500\/-,
\nwhereas the deceased was getting only Rs.12,811\/- per month
\nafter mandatory deductions.\n<\/p>\n
13. The learned counsel for respondents repelling the above
\ncontentions has contended that the learned tribunal rightly
\nheld the driver of the bus of appellant liable for causing
\naccident because on the basis of the evidence the driver of the
\nsaid bus turned it towards Wings & Nest Hotel on wrong
\ndirection without giving signal and collided the same with
\nmotorcycle of the deceased coming from opposite direction.\n<\/p>\n
14. A perusal of the record would go to show that the learned
\ntribunal has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of P.W.1
\nKamran Ahmad, who was a pillion rider of the motorcycle at
\nthe time of the accident and he witnessed the entire scene of
\nthe incident. He categorically stated that he alongwith his
\nbrother Khalid Hussain was coming from Dhamora to
\nRampur on 1.7.2004 by motorcycle no. U.P.22-C\/0791 and
\nwhen he alongwith him reached at about 11.30 a.m. in front
\nof Wings & Nest Hotel, the offending bus no. U.P.53L\/9942
\nbeing driven in rash and negligent manner came from
\nopposite direction i.e. Rampur side and its driver without
\ngiving signal turned the said bus towards the said hotel and
\ncollided it with their motorcycle in which his brother Khalid
\nHussain sustained grievous injuries and ultimately he died in
\nDistrict Hospital, Rampur and the driver of the said bus
\neluded his capture. He also stated that he lodged an F.I.R. at
\nP.S. Shahzad Nagar about the said accident.\n<\/p>\n
15. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination which
\ncould make his testimony unreliable. This witness in his
\ncross-examination further stated that the motorcycle was
\nbeing driven by deceased Khalid Hussain with moderate
\nspeed at the time of the accident but the driver of offending
\nbus turned it towards his right hand i.e. Wings & Nest Hotel
\nwithout giving signal and due to rash and negligent driving of
\nthe bus the said accident took place. The learned tribunal
\nrightly believed the testimony of P.W.1 Kamran Ahmad and
\nrejected the testimony of D.W.1 Panchmeshwar Tripathi,
\nconductor of the said bus, on the ground that he admitted in
\nhis cross-examination that he could not see actual scene of
\noccurrence from his seat. The learned tribunal rightly
\n recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence of D.W.1
\nPanchmeshwar Tripathi and circumstances attending to the
\ncase that the bus was being driven with fast speed at the time
\nof the accident and driver of the bus turned it with same
\nspeed. Issue no. 1 has been rightly decided in favour of the
\npetitioners with which no interference is required.\n<\/p>\n
16. The learned tribunal has rightly held that non production
\nof driving licence of the deceased Khalid Hussain would not
\naffect the rights of the petitioners in getting the
\ncompensation. He further held that no insurance policy
\ncertificate could be filed on behalf of the petitioners, as a
\nresult of which presumption would be drawn that there was
\nno insurance policy of the motorcycle at the time of the
\naccident and at the most liability of the Insurance Company
\ncould be held in respect of third party.\n<\/p>\n
17. No liability was fastened on opposite party no.2 by the
\nlearned tribunal. No argument has been advanced on behalf
\nof the appellant on issues no. 4 and 5 before this Court. The
\nfindings recorded by tribunal on issues no.2, 3, 4 and 5 have
\nnot been challenged by appellant in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
18. The learned counsel for appellant has vehemently
\ncontended that the learned tribunal committed factual and
\nlegal error in calculating the amount of compensation,
\nbecause the amount of compensation should have been
\ncalculated on the basis of basic pay and D.A. out of which the
\namount of G.P.F. and income tax was liable to be deducted.
\nMoreover the amount awarded by tribunal is highly excessive
\nand liable to be reduced in view of personal expenditure to be
\nincurred on deceased.\n<\/p>\n
19. So far as the findings recorded by learned tribunal on
\nissue no.6 is concerned, there is evidence on record to this
\neffect that the deceased Khalid Hussain was drawing
\nRs.15,512\/- per month as salary while he was working as
\nA.G.-1(d) in Food Corporation of India. The salary certificate
\nhas been proved by P.W.3 Jai Ram Sharma working as
\naccountant in Food Corporation of India, who has stated that
\ndeceased Khalid Hussain was working on above post in Food
\nCorporation of India till the time of accident. This fact has
\nalso been corroborated by P.W.2 Smt. Naima Rehman, wife
\n of the deceased in her testimony. The learned tribunal on the
\nbasis of evidence on record deducted Rs.1,000\/- as income
\ntax from total income of Rs. 15,512\/- and found Rs.14,512\/-
\nper month as actual salary of deceased and taking round
\nfigure found his monthly income at Rs.14,500\/- and annual
\nincome at Rs.1,74,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
20. The learned tribunal further held that 1\/3rd amount as
\npersonal expenditure to be incurred on deceased should be
\ndeducted which came to Rs.58,000\/- and thus net income of
\nthe deceased came to Rs.1,16,000\/ per annum. The learned
\ntribunal adopting the multiplier of 11 calculated the amount
\nof compensation as Rs.12,76,000\/- in addition to funeral
\nexpenses of Rs.2,000\/- , mental agony of Rs.5,000\/- and loss
\nof property of Rs.2,500\/- and thus total amount of
\ncompensation worked out to be Rs.12,85,500\/- and taking the
\nround figure learned tribunal calculated the amount of
\ncompensation at Rs.12,50,000\/- and held that out of the said
\namount petitioner no.1 Smt. Naima Rehman would get
\nRs.6,50,000\/- and petitioners no. 2 and 3 would get
\nRs.3,00,000\/- each. It was further directed that the share of
\npetitioner no.1 would be deposited in any nationalised bank
\nin fixed deposit scheme for a period of six years and the
\npetitioners would get interest at the rate of 4% on the said
\namount of compensation from the date of presentation of
\npetition till date of actual payment.\n<\/p>\n
21. The learned counsel for the respondents\/claimants has
\nrelied on the decision in the case of Asha and others Vs.
\nUnited India Insurance Company Limited and another,
\n1(2004) ACC 533 (SC), wherein the salary certificate of the
\ndeceased shows that the salary of the deceased was
\nRs.8,632\/-, but the High Court after making necessary
\ndeductions held the salary to be Rs. 6,642\/-. The Hon’ble
\nApex Court held that the High Court was wrong in deducting
\nthe allowances and amounts paid towards LIC, Society
\ncharges and HBA etc because the claimants would have been
\nreceiving the same amount at the time when the deceased was
\nalive. Thus the claimants are entitled to get compensation for
\nthe loss suffered by them. There can be no doubt the
\ndependents would only be receiving the net amount less 1\/3
\nrd for his personal expenses.\n<\/p>\n
                      22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma
\n                     and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
\n                     2009(2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) has discussed various aspect of
\n                     accident cases settling the judgments in this regard. The
\n                     Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it would be appropriate
\n                     to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of
\n                     compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be
\n                     considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of
\n                     Courts\/Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance
\n                     method enunciated in Nance Vs. British Columbia Electric
\n                     Railway, Company Limited, 1991 A.C. 601 and some
\n                     adopting the view method enunciated in Deview Vs. Powell
\n                     Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited, 1942 A.C. 601. The
\n                     difference between the two methods was considered and
\n                     explained in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
\n                     Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) S.C.C. 176.
\n                     After exhaustive consideration, the Hon’ble Apex Court
\n                     preferred the Davies method to Nance method. In Susamma
\n                     Thomas case the principles laid down can be reproduced as
\n                     below:\n<\/p>\n
       “In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss
\nsuffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant as a result of the death.
\nThe assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with
\ndifficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many
\nimponderable e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the
\namount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the
\namount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the
\nchances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up
\nto the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the
\ndeceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his
\nemployment or income altogether.\n<\/p>\n
       The matter of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the
\ndeceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct
\ntherefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon
\nhimself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what
\npart of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of
\nthe dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure
\nrepresenting the proper number of year’s purchase.\n<\/p>\n
       The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency
\nor the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and
\ncapitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the
\nmultiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants
\n whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at
\na rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand
\nby way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the
\nfact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period
\nfor which the dependency is expected to last.\n<\/p>\n
        It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound
\nand legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to
\ndetermine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future
\nearnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage
\ntherefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as
\ncompensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say
\n25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this
\nmethod would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years- virtually adopting a
\nmultiplier of 45 and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom
\ntowards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the
\neffective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible.”\n<\/p>\n
        23. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (4)
\nS.C.C. 362, the Hon’ble Apex Court while reiterating the preference to Davies
\nmethod followed in Susamma Thomas has made following observations:\n<\/p>\n
     “In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first
\n     the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated
\n     useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of
\n     longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing
\n     on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the
\n     dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise
\n     and prudent investments, etc, would become necessary. It was generally felt
\n     that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation
\n     rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready
\n     measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on
\n     the life-span taken. This is the reason why Courts in India as well as England
\n     preferred the Davies’ formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as
\n     observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas’ case, usually
\n     English Courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too
\n     followed the same pattern till recently when Tribunals\/Court began to use a
\n     hybrid method of using Nance’s method without making deduction for
\n     imponderables……Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies,
\n     the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the
\n     deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and
\n     thus, assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual
\n     dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an
\n     appropriate multipliers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 24. In Susamma Thomas case it has been observed that the
\nproper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any
\ndeparture, except in exceptional and extra-ordinary cases,
\nwould introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of
\nuniformity and an elements of unpredictability, for the
\nassessment of compensation. Basically only three facts need
\nto be established by the claimants for assessing compensation
\nin the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the
\ndeceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The issues to be
\ndetermined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
\ndependency are (i) additions\/deductions to be made for
\narriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards
\nthe personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the
\nmultiplier to be applied with reference to the age of deceased.
\nIf these determinants are standardized, there will be
\nuniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be
\nlesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
\ninsurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
\nTo have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
\ndetermine compensation in cases of death, by the following
\nwell-settled steps:\n<\/p>\n
Steps 1.\n<\/p>\n
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined.
\nOut of the said income a deduction should be made in regard
\nto the amount which the deceased would have spent on
\nhimself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance,
\nwhich is considered to be the contribution to the dependant
\nfamily, constitutes the multiplicand.\n<\/p>\n
Step 2.\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
\ncareer, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This
\ndoes not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
\nhave lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
\nseveral imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
\nmultipliers with reference to the age has been identified. The
\nmultiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference
\nto the age of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
Steps 3.\n<\/p>\n
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
\nmultiplied by such multiplier gives the ‘loss of dependancy’ to
\nthe family.\n<\/p>\n
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body and
\n cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death
\nshould also be added.\n<\/p>\n
25. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income
\ntax should be the starting point for calculating the
\ncompensation. The question is whether actual income at the
\ntime of death should be taken as the income or whether any
\naddition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In
\nSusamma Thomas, it has been held that the future prospects
\nof advancement in life and career should also be sounded in
\nterms of money to augment the multiplicand and that where
\nthe deceased had a stable job, the Court can take note of the
\nprospects of the future and it would be unreasonable to
\nestimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the
\ndeceased at the time of death.\n<\/p>\n
26. The personal and living expenses of the deceased should
\nbe deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to
\nthe dependents. No evidence need be led to show the actual
\nexpenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf
\nwill be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable.
\nClaimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was
\nvery frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was
\nspending virtually the entire income on the family. In some
\ncases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the
\ndeceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. It is also very
\ndifficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce
\nevidence to show that the deceased was spending a
\nconsiderable part of the income on himself or that he was
\ncontributing only a small part of the income on his family.
\nTherefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions
\nto be made under the head of personal and living expenses of
\nthe deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards
\npersonal and living expenses of the deceased, one third of the
\nincome if the deceased was a married, and one-third of
\nincome if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was
\nevolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact
\none-third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second
\nSchedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
27. But such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule
\nand offers merely a guideline. In Susamma Thomas case, it
\n was observed that in the absence of evidence, it is not unusual
\nto deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal
\nliving expenses of the deceased and treat the balance as the
\namount likely to have been spent on the members of the
\nfamily of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
\nCompany Limited Vs. Deo Patodi and others, 2009 (4) AWC
\n3331 (SC), has observed that deduction of one-third towards
\npersonal expenses is the ordinarily rule in India. In the case of
\nNational Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pitam Singh and
\nanother, 2007 (4) T.A.C. 993 (Allahabad), it has also been
\nobserved that the deduction of one-third made by the tribunal
\ncalls for no interference. In the case of Bilkish Vs. United
\nIndia Insurance Company Limited and another, 2008 (2)
\nAWC 2043 (SC), it has been observed that one-third amount
\nshould be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased
\nfrom his income.\n<\/p>\n
29. So far as multiplier used in the present case is concerned,
\nSecond Schedule of M.Vehicles Act, provides the multiplier
\nof 11 in the case of the deceased between 51 to 55 years. In
\nview of the permanent account no.0AA HPH 1597 the date of
\nbirth of the deceased has been found as 1.1.1951 and thus the
\nage of the deceased Khalid Hussain has been found to be 53
\nyears at the time of accident and thus the learned tribunal has
\nrightly used multiplier of 11 in this case which does not suffer
\nfrom any error or illegality.\n<\/p>\n
30. The salary slip relating to June, 2004 filed in the court
\nbelow has been proved by P.W.3 Jai Ram Sharma in view of
\nwhich the deduction of Rs.1,000\/- as income tax has been
\nshown and sum of Rs.1691\/- has been shown to be deducted
\ntowards G.P.F. The learned tribunal has rightly held that the
\namount of G.P.F. is contributed by the employee himself and
\non retirement he gets this amount alogwith interest and thus
\nthe amount of G.P.F deducted from the salary cannot be
\nexcluded from his income. On account of deduction of
\nRs.1,000\/- per month as Income Tax from the salary of the
\ndeceased the net income of the deceased comes to
\nRs.14,512\/- per month and the learned tribunal has rightly
\nheld that the said amount in round figure comes to
\n Rs.14,500\/-per moth. No other amount can be said to be
\ndeductable from the income of the deceased in order to
\ncalculate the amount of compensation on account of his death
\nin the accident. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted
\none-third amount from the income of the deceased which has
\nbeen presumed to have been spent on the deceased himself
\nduring his life time as he would have spent this amount on
\nhimself and thus learned tribunal has not committed any error
\nin deducting one-third amount from his income.\n<\/p>\n
31. In view of above discussions, we are in full agreement
\nwith the findings recoded by the learned tribunal, which do
\nnot suffer from infirmity or illegality. No error is found in the
\naward passed by the learned Tribunal in calculating the
\namount of compensation granted to the petitioners. There is
\nno illegality or irregularity in the judgment and award which
\ndoes not require any interference. Consequently this appeal
\nlacks merit and is dismissed. The judgment and award passed
\nby the learned tribunal is confirmed. The parties shall bear
\ntheir own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Dated:28.1.2010
\nR.U.\n<\/p>\n
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
\nRU\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 Court No. – 34 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. – 2211 of 2006 Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru’ Regional Manager Respondent :- Smt. Naima Rehman & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Avanish Mishra […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nU.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-09T14:58:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-09T14:58:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4712,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-09T14:58:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-09T14:58:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-09T14:58:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":4712,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010","name":"U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-09T14:58:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-transport-vs-smt-naima-rehman-others-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P. State Road Transport … vs Smt. Naima Rehman & Others on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=89265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}