Allahabad High Court

Sangeet Devi And Others vs Anwar Hussain And Another on 13 November, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201879
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3225 of 2018   
 
   Sangeet Devi And Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Anwar Hussain And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
 Ram Singh, Kameshwar Chaubey, Ram Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Amit Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Gaurav Singh, R.O.V.S.Chauhan   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 38
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.04.2001 passed by Smt. Jayashree Mishra, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Fatehpur, in MACP No. 234 of 1997 (Sangeeta Devi and others vs. Anwar Hussain and another), whereby, for the untimely death of Gareeb Prasad in a motor accident that occurred on 11/12.07.1997, a compensation of Rs. 1,12,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. Appeal is admitted.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the deceased was running a general store and was earning about Rs.4,500/- per month, but the Tribunal has only assessed his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month, which is inadequate. Further, out of the above income, a dependency of Rs.560/- per month of claimants was assumed. After applying multiplier of 18, an amount of Rs.1,00,800/- was awarded towards pecuniary loss to the claimants.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, awarded less amount of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards consortium.

5. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation payable to the claimants, be enhanced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that since no documentary proof of income and occupation of the deceased was submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, which requires no interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

7. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778, held as under:-

?8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the payment of Rs. 11,550/- as instalment to discharge his loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the entire loan was paid back within a year or so. That clearly establishes the earning capacity of the deceased. It is also the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was working as a contractor and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and keeping in view factors like : (i) the payment of monthly instalment of Rs. 11,550/- towards loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife, two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as a contractor; assessed his income at Rs. 25,000/- per month.

9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs. 25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody's case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court. ?

(emphasis supplied)

9. The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra vs. Sadiya & Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 261, held as under:-

?10. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant and the functional disability suffered by him. At the outset, we must refer to the exposition of this Court in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778., wherein it was stated the notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in cases where there is no evidence available to evaluate monthly income.?

10. It is true that the claimants have not filed the documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased, but still in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur (supra) and Jitendra (supra), the claimants are entitled to get compensation on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour prevailing at the time of the accident in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was about Rs.3,000/- per month.

11. It is also apparent that as per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, where the age of the deceased was less than 40 years, then the claimants are entitled to get compensation on future prospects @ 50%.

12. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680 has awarded loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is to be enhanced at the rate of 10% after every three years.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium.

14. A Division Bench of this Court in FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar & Another vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017 has held that even if the accident occurred prior to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to compensation on future prospects as per amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial legislation.

15. It is evident that the claimants are entitled to enhanced consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). The claimants are also entitled to compensation on future prospect @50%, keeping in view the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) since he was aged below 40 years on the date of the accident.

16. In view of the statutory law and precedents of the Apex Court, the compensation payable to the claimants is redetermined as under:-

S.No.

Compensation Heads

Amount Awarded (in Rs.)

In Accordance with.

1.

Monthly income of deceased as per minimum wages of unskilled labour

3,000/-

Gurpreet Kaur (supra & Jitendra (supra)

Annual Income of deceased

3,000X12=36,000/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

Less 1/3rd deduction towards self expenses

12,000/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

Net annual income on which claimants were dependent

24,000/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

Add future prospects @50% since age of deceased was below 40 years

12,000/-

Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998

Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased

36,000/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

Multiplier applied since age of deceased was between 31-35 years

Pranay Sethi(supra)

Total loss of dependency to the claimants

36,000X16=5,76,000/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

Loss of consortium to widow and 2 minor children of deceased @Rs.40,000/-each, increased by 10% after every 3 years

48,400X3=1,45,200/-

Pranay Sethi(supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)

10.

Loss of estate @ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10% after every 3 years.

18,150/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

11.

Funeral Expenses@ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10% after every 3 years.

18,150/-

Pranay Sethi(supra)

12.

Total compensation

7,57,500/-

17. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,57,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till it's actual payment, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

18. The appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent.

19. If any amount has been paid by the insurance company previously, then the insurance company is entitled to adjust it accordingly. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned tribunal within two months. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants keeping in view their age and dependency.

20. The original record of the lower court be sent back, forthwith.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

November 13, 2025

Mayank