Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited ... vs Shashi Gupta And 6 Others on 1 September, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51617
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 347 of 2025
United India Insurance Company Limited Lko. Thru. Its Manager
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Shashi Gupta And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 15.04.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki in Claim Petition no.446 of 2019 whereby in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,17,885/- along with 7% interest per annum in favour of the claimant respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award has raised a three fold submission:
(i) It is urged that since the deceased had a business which even after his death, continued to be run by his heirs, accordingly, it cannot be said that there is any major difference in the loss of income or dependency. Alternatively, it has also been urged that even if at all there is loss then atleast 50% should have been deducted as not 1/4th as done by the Tribunal.
(ii) It is also urged that the involvement of the insured bus is also in doubt in view of the fact that the FIR was lodged after two days from the date of the accident. It is further urged that the eye witness which was produced on behalf of the claimants stated that he had witnessed the accident from a distance of about 25 feet and when had reached the actual spot, only then he identified the deceased.
(iii) It is urged that in absence of any clear and cogent evidence, the bus was neither found to be involved nor the testimony of the eye witness was credible to draw any inference regarding the occurrence of the accident and for the said reasons, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is vitiated. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sushma H.R. & Anr vs Deepak Kumar Jha & Ors; 2022 SCC Online SC 2166 and S. Vishnu Ganga and Ors v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Ors; 2025 SCC Online SC 182.
4. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.
5. Apparently, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant can be clubbed together and instead of three point submission as raised, it can be culminated in two parts. One relating to the occurrence of the accident and the credibility of the evidence proving the said accident and other relating to the quantum based on ITR as well as actual loss of income.
6. Viewed with the aforesaid angle in so far as the first issue is concerned, it would indicate that eye witness was produced on behalf of the claimants who clearly narrated the manner in which the accident took place. The contention that he had viewed the accident from a distance of 25 feet and thereafter upon reaching the spot he identified the deceased does not create any cloud over his testimony.
7. What is relevant to notice is that in so far as the involvement of the bus is concerned, an FIR was lodged after two days. Upon investigation, prima facie involvement of the bus was found and its driver was also chargesheeted. On the contrary, the owner of the bus neither appeared in the witness box nor the driver of the bus was produced. The driver of the bus would have been the best witness and since he was not produced, apparently, it amounts to withholding the best evidence and in such circumstances, the finding returned by the tribunal does not suffer from any palpable error especially when the testimony and evidence of the claimants remained almost uncontroverted in absence of any evidence from either the owner/driver or the insurer.
8. As far as the second limb of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it will be noticed that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the deceased was running a business of selling utensils. He was survived by his 3 children and widow. The income tax as well as GST returns which have been filed gives a fairly credible idea of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on the basis of his income tax returns and though the claimants stated the income to be 5 lacs per annum which was not proved hence taking the income of Rs.22,500/- per month cannot be said to be bad based on the average of the income ascertained by considering the income tax returns. Considering the number of dependents 1/4 was deducted and considering the age of 58 years, appropriate multiplier was applied.
9. It will be relevant to notice that for the purposes of computing the compensation there is no mathematical formula which has to be applied. The basic principle which has to be kept in mind is that there should be a fair and just compensation paid to the claimants whereas it should not be exorbitant as the compensation should not be treated as a bounty nor it is to be awarded as an act of generosity.
10. The dictum of the Apex Court in S. Vishnu Ganga (supra) reveals that the High Court had reduced the compensation, which was enhanced and the amount granted by the Tribunal was restored. Amount granted towards consortium and conventional heads was generous, which is not in the instant case, rather amount under conventional heads and consortium is quite on the lower side as each of the dependent i.e. the widow and 3 children has to be paid. The observation made by the Apex Court in S. Vishnu Ganga (supra) is after taking note of the decision of Sushma H.R. (supra) and in paras 11 to 14 of S. Vishnu Ganga (supra) explains the law and it cannot be said that it in any manner specifically holds as a principle that 50% of the income should be reduced.
11. This has to be seen in context with the facts and circumstances of each case and applying the said principles herein, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error which may persuade this Court to entertain the appeal.
12. Taking a holistic view, this Court finds that there is no error, hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. The award dated 15.04.2025 passed in Claim Petition no.446 of 2019 is affirmed. The amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant respondents and any shortfall shall also be made good by the appellant within a period of 60 days from today.
(Jaspreet Singh,J.) September 1, 2025 Harshita