Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pan Kumari And Others vs Ajay Kumar Baghel And Anr. on 24 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:210463
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 373 of 2012
Smt. Pan Kumari And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ajay Kumar Baghel And Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Parv Agarwal
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Fatehpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.346 of 2010 (Smt. Pan Kumari and others vs Ajay Kumar Baghel and another) whereby for the untimely death of Rajkesh @ Rakesh Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 27.09.2010, a compensation of Rs.1,69,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(wife and children), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of offending Dumper No.UP-32-CZ-4442.
2. Since no cross appeal by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle has been filed, as such, the factum of accident and negligence of offending driver is not disputed by the respondents.
3. The deceased was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, who used to operate a chat cart. According to claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- to 3,000/- daily but the Tribunal has assessed his income on notional basis at Rs.15,000/- per annum, has not awarded any compensation on future prospects, applied multiplier of 16, has deducted 1/3rd amount towards self expenses whereas there were four dependents of the deceased, has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% per annum on total compensation of Rs.1,69,500/-.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that since no documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased was submitted by the claimants, as such, the income of the deceased should at-least have been taken on the basis of minimum wages paid to a skilled workman at the time of the accident in the State of U.P., since the deceased used to sell chat on a cart, which is a skilled job. He further submitted that since, there were four dependents of the deceased, as such, as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680, the Tribunal was only supposed to make a deduction of 1/4th amount towards self expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since the deceased was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, he was entitled to get compensation on future prospects @ 50% but the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants are also entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum but the Tribunal has only awarded interest @ 6% per annum. It was further submitted that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation towards non-pecuniary heads, which is required to be enhanced substantially.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that since no documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased was produced, as such, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded right amount of compensation to the claimants, which warrants no enhancement by this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and documents annexed along with this appeal.
7. 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)
8. 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.?
9. 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.
10. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. It is true that the claimants failed to submit any documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased, but still claimants were entitled to get compensation on the basis of minimum wages of skilled labour prevalent at the time of the accident in the State of U.P., which was Rs.4,803/- per month. Since the deceased used to make and sell chat, it cannot be presumed that it was an unskilled job. The making of chat itself requires expertise, as such, it will be appropriate that the deceased is considered as a skilled workman and on that basis the compensation is determined in this case.
14. Since, there were four dependents of the deceased, as such, as per the decision of Apex Court in the case Pranay Sethi (supra), only an amount of 1/4th was required to be deducted towards self expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount, which is erroneous. Further, as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants are entitled to get compensation on future prospects @ 50% since the deceased was only aged about 35 years at the time of the accident.
15. In view of the above legal position and precedents, 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(as per the minimum wages of skilled workman)
4,803/-
Gurpreet Kaur (supra) & Jitendra (supra)
2.
Annual Income of deceased
4,803X12=57,636/-
Gurpreet Kaur (supra) & Jitendra (supra)
3.
Less 1/4th deduction towards self expenses (since number of dependents is 4)
14,409/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
4.
Net annual income on which claimants were dependent
43,227/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
5.
Add future prospects @50% since deceased was aged about 35 years
21,613/-
Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998
6.
Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased
64,840/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
7.
Multiplier applied since age of deceased was about 35 years
Pranay Sethi(supra)
8.
Total loss of dependency to the claimants
64,840 x 16 =10,37,440/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
9.
Loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/-each, increased by 10% after every 3 years (4 claimants)
48,400X4=1,93,600/-
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
12,67,340/-
16. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,67,340/- 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 Dumper No.UP-32-CZ-4442.
17. The appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent.
18. 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 one 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.
19. The original record of the lower court be sent back, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
November 24, 2025
Jitendra
