Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Waris Ali And 2 Others vs Mohd. Gulnoor And Another on 14 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:202997
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1898 of 2022
Mohd. Waris Ali And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Mohd. Gulnoor And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Manish Kumar Dwivedi, Pawan Kumar Singh
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Prayagraj in M.A.C.P. No.846 of 2016 (Mohd. Waris Ali and others vs. Mohd. Gulnoor and another), whereby for the untimely death of Mohd. Ali Asgar Raza(deceased), in a motor accident that occurred on 08.02.2016, a compensation of Rs.11,45,200/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(father,widow and daughter), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Car No.UP-73A-5635.
2. Since, no cross-appeal has been filed by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, as such, the factum of accident and negligence is not disputed by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that Mohd. Ali Asgar Raza(deceased) was aged about 31 years at the time of the accident on 08.02.2016, who was a religious teacher in the Madarsa and was also an Imam, who used to impart holy Quran to the students and was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has assessed his income only at Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, the claimants are entitled to compensation on future prospects @50% of his income but the Tribunal has only awarded 40%. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded less amount towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium. It was submitted that in order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants examined Mohd. Ansar as PW-3 and Mohd. Irfan as PW-4, who have duly proved the occupation and income of the deceased. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and compensation paid to the claimants be enhanced.
4. Per contra, learned counsel of respondent insurance company has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has awarded right amount of compensation to the claimants, which warrants no enhancement from this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel of both the sides and perused the record of the lower court.
6. The claimants have examined Mohd. Ansar as PW-3 and Mohd. Irfan as PW-4 in order to prove the occupation and income of Mohd. Ali Asgar Raza(deceased).
7. PW-3 Mohd. Ansar has deposed that he is the Principal of Madarsa Islamiya Barkate Habib, Ghazi ka pura, Kaushambi, which imparts education to the children of Madarsa, in which deceased was a teacher, who used to teach students of the Madarsa and was paid a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. Besides that the deceased also used to work as Imam and was paid Rs.3,000/- per month. In total, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. This witness has proved the certificate dated 02.12.2017, according to which, the deceased was paid a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the Madarsa was registered, which was not government aided. The deceased was working as teacher in the Madarsa since May, 2011 and was paid Rs.7,000/- as salary. He further deposed that at present 110 students were getting education in the Madarsa, which was registered since the year 2007. He further deposed that the deceased was a teacher of Urdu and Arabic language.
8. Mohd. Irfan (PW-4) has deposed that the deceased used to impart education to the children in the Madarsa Islamiya Barkate Habib, Gazi ka pura, Kaushambi and also was an Imam, who used to lead the prayers of namaz five times a day and was paid Rs.3,000/- per month. He accepted that he had issued a certificate in this regard to the claimants.
9. From the evidence of PW-3 Mohd Ansar and PW-4 Mohd Irfan, it is proved that the deceased was a teacher, who used to teach students in the Madarsa, who was earning Rs.7,000/- per month from that job and was also an Imam, who used to assist the persons in offering namaz five times a day, and was being paid Rs.3,000/- per month for that job. In this way, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Even the minimum wages of skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs.8,397/- per month, as such, on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, the claimants are entitled to get compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants are also entitled to enhanced consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
10. It is also apparent that Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 w.e.f. 26.09.2011, mandates that when the deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of accident, the claimants are also entitled to compensation on future prospects @50% of his income.
11. 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.
12. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others (2018) 18 SCC 130, has granted consortium of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, spousal consortium and filial consortium.
13. In view of the above legal position, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation, which is redetermined as under:-
S.No.
Compensation Heads
Amount Awarded in Rs.
In Accordance with.
1.
Monthly income of deceased
10,000/- -
2.
Annual Income of deceased
10,000X12=1,20,000/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
3.
Less 1/3rd deduction towards self expenses(3 dependents)
40,000/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
4.
Net annual income on which claimants were dependent
80,000/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
5.
Add future prospects @50% since deceased was aged less than 40 years
40,000/-
Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998
6.
Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased
1,20,000/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
7.
Multiplier applied since age of deceased was about 31 years
Pranay Sethi(supra)
8.
Total loss of dependency to the claimants
1,20,000 x 16 =19,20,000/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
9.
Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/-each, increased by 10% after every 3 years (3 claimants)
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
21,01,500/-
14. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,01,500/- alongwith interest @ 7% 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.
15. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent.
16. 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 month. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants, keeping in view their age and dependency.
17. The original record of the lower court be sent back, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
November 14, 2025
Jitendra
