[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Amna @ Munni And Others on 12 May, 2026
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:109344
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1888 of 2010
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Amna @ Munni And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Siddarth Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Lal Chand Sahu
Along with :
1.
First Appeal From Order No. 1887 of 2010:
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Smt. Vilkesh @ Sania Begum and others
Court No. - 50
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Heard Sri Siddarth Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Lal Chand Sahu, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging an award dated 09.03.2010 whereby, the appellant was directed to pay half of the amount awarded to the claimants on account of the death of the husband of the respondent no.1.
3. The facts in brief are that the husband of the respondent no.1 died in an accident, which took place on 04.02.2007. As the accident involved an Alto Car being driven by the deceased as well as the truck bearing No.UP11B0507, which was insured by the present appellant.
4. A plea was taken that there was a contributory negligence, which was upheld and the negligence of the truck was held to be 50%. Based upon the said findings recorded by the Tribunal, the award was passed treating the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which was a notional income, on which, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and as the age of the deceased was 48 years, multiplier of 13 was applied and compensation was awarded. It was further awarded that 50% of the total compensation shall be paid by the appellant herein and rest of the amount of 50% shall be paid by the Insurance Company of the Alto Car, which was driven by the deceased at the time of accident.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that there was a delay of 5 days in lodging of the FIR and the final report had been filed, which was not brought on record or challenge by the claimants, thus, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. It is also argued that the driving license of the truck driver demonstrates that the driver was not authorized to drive HGV vehicle. The driving license of the truck driver was for LMV (private) vehicles, thus, there was a violation of the condition of the policy.
6. The Counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand states that although he has filed a cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation, in case the grievance of the enhancement is considered in the present appeal, he would not press the cross appeal. 7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the first submission with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be held to be fatal for the claim, as the delay of five days cannot be said to be 'inordinate' in the facts of the case. Non challenge of final report also has no consequences of the claim, which is to be decided in terms of the mandate of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The third submission with regard to the driver being authorized only to drive LMV (Private) vehicles and not HGV vehicles. The tribunal has recorded a finding based upon a license, which was filed. Prima facie, there is no material to suggest that filing on that count is bad in law. However, in any case, violation of the terms and conditions of the policy only authorizes the Insurance Company to pay and recovery.
8. As regards the quantum of compensation, an income tax return was filed in the year 2006-2007 showing his income at Rs.105150/-, however, the same was disbelieved by the Tribunal only on the ground that the tax paid on the said income was not depicted and the returns of earlier years have not been filed, thus, the income was treated as notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month.
9. The Counsel for the respondent-claimants argues that once the income return was filed, which is a statutory documents, irrespective of the payment of income tax, the factum of the income stood established and merely because, the returns of the earlier years have not been filed, the same could have no consequence.
10. Before the Tribunal, the documentary evidence in the form of ITR had been presented and the reasons for ignoring the same are wholly irrelevant. Thus, there was no basis for the Tribunal to form a view that the income of the deceased would be a notional income of Rs.3,000/-. Thus to that extent, the award of the tribunal deserves to be set aside and the compensation, to which the claimants are entitled, is worked out as under:
Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded
1. Income of the deceased as per the ITR 2006-07 Rs.1,05,150/- per year
2. Adding 25% in the light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) Rs.1,31,437.5
3. Net yearly income Rs.1,31,437.5/-
4. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.1,31,437.5 x 1/3rd = Rs.43,812.50 After deduction : Rs.1,31,437.50 - Rs.43,812.50 =Rs.87,625/-
5. Applying multiplier of '13' Rs.87,625 x 13 =Rs.11,39,125/-
6.
Amount under conventional heads: (i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/- (ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra) (iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per person (Rs.48,500 x 4) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra)
Rs.18,500 +
Rs.18,500 +
Rs.1,94,000 =
Rs.2,31,000/-
7. Total amount of compensation
Rs.11,39,125+ Rs.2,31,000/- Rs.13,70,125/-
11. Being the contributory negligence, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay 50% of the total compensation to the claimants within a period of three months along with interest @ 7% from the date of claim till actual payment/ realisation.
12. Any amount already paid as compensation by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimants.
13. The amount, if any, deposited herein shall be transmitted to the tribunal concerned for being paid to the respondents-claimants in accordance with law.
14. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in the account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details of anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount shall not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required to open a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17.1 of Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal and others: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318 and in para 9 of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.7 of 2024 In Re:Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts.
15. The appeal being FAFO No.1888 of 2010 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
16. In case, the appellant-Insurance Company establishes the violation of condition, it will be open to the appellant to recover the said amount by initiating appropriate proceedings.
17. The connect appeal being FAFO No.1887 of 2010 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award of Rs.20,000/-, out of which, 50% is to be paid by the appellant to the claimants towards the medical expenses to the injured.
18. Considering the nature of the award of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid to the injured and the amount being meager, no interference is called for.19. The FAFO No.1887 of 2010 is also dismissed.
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
May 12, 2026
akverma
