National Insurance Company Limited, ... vs Lavkush & Anr. on 21 March, 2017

[Cites 34, Cited by 110]

Allahabad High Court

National Insurance Company Limited, ... vs Lavkush & Anr. on 21 March, 2017

1. Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no. 1. Both counsel for the parties requested that issue raised in this appeal is basically legal and there is no factual dispute, hence appeal may be heard at this stage on the basis of record of memo of appeal and decided finally as no useful purpose will be served by keeping it pending. Learned counsel for appellant also stated that award is not being challenged on the question, whether there was accident or not or that accident took place due to negligence of vehicle owned by Respondent 2. All these aspects are not being agitated and to this extent findings of Tribunal qua appellant are final. Appellant is confining relief in this appeal only on the quantum of compensation awarded to Claimant-Respondent 1.

2. Hence we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing learned counsel for parties at this stage.

3. This appeal has come up at the instance of National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurer") under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") assailing judgment and award dated 07.12.2016 passed by Sri Veerbhadra, Additional District Judge (Court No. 8), Barabanki/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition (hereinafter referred to as the "MACP") No. 140 of 2015, awarding compensation of Rs. 7,10,319/- payable by Appellant-Insurer to Claimant-Respondent 1 alongwith 6% interest. Amount of compensation included (i) Rs. 6,48,000/- towards loss of earning; (ii) Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings; (iii) Rs. 10,000/- for loss of limb; (iv) Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses on assistant; and, (v) Rs. 30319/- towards medical expenses.

4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are; On 03.05.2015, Luvkush, (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant") aged about 20 years while coming from Barabanki, riding an Auto Rickshaw, reached near Baraiyya crossing at around 11.00 am, when Tempo No. UP 41 T 5229 collided with Auto Rickshaw as a result whereof Claimant sustained severe injuries. He was referred to District Hospital, whereafter Doctors referred him to Lucknow and thereat he was admitted in Priti Hospital. His right leg was amputed. In the course of treatment, expenses of more than Rs. 66,000/- were incurred. Claimant is an unskilled labour and due to amputation of right leg, has lost his source of livelihood entirely inasmuch as now it has become impossible for him to do the job of unskilled labour and, therefore, Claimant has suffered functional disability of 100%. Hence, MACP was filed before Tribunal seeking compensation of 35,70,200/- alongwith interest on the ground that Claimant has suffered 100% disability towards earning livelihood for himself and even otherwise has to seek assistance throughout the life, hence deserves compensation in the light of aforesaid circumstances.

5. Claim was contested by Insurer as well as owner of Tempo. Appellant-Insurer contested claim by denying most of the assertions contained in MACP. It also pleaded in written statement usual defence, namely, driver of vehicle did not possess valid and effective licence, driver was not in employment of owner of insured tortfeaser vehicle, Claimant did not suffer injury in the accident with insured vehicle and Insurer has no liability for payment of compensation. It was further pleaded that Claimant has not given details of Insurance Policy as also details of owner of tortfeaser vehicle and lastly that Claimant is not entitled for any amount of compensation whatsoever.

6. Sri Prem Prakash Shukla-Respondent 2, owner of tortfeaser vehicle, i.e., Tempo, pleaded that he carried all relevant documents, namely, registration certificate, driving licence, insurance certificate, fitness certificate etc. He denied factum of accident due to alleged negligence. In fact the very accident was denied by him. In any case, he pleaded that vehicle being insured, entire liability is that of Insurer.

7. Trial Court formulated following five issues:

**1- D;k fnukad 03-05-2015 dks le; yxHkx 11 cts fnu ckjkcadh tSniqj jksM ij cjS;k pkSjkgk ds fudV ogu Fkkuk tSniqj] ckjkcadh esa VsEiks uEcj ;w0ih0&41&Vh&5229 ds pkyd }kjk mls rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj vkVks] ftlesa ;kph yodq'k crkSj lokjh cSBk Fkk] esa VDdj ekj nsus ls gqbZ nq?kZVuk esa xEHkhj pksVsa ;kph dks vk;h ftlds QyLo:i mldk nkfguk iSj dkV nsuk iM+k ftlls og LFkk;h :i ls fu;ksZX; gks x;k\

1. Whether on 03.05.2015 at around 11 am on Barabanki - Zaidpur Road, near Baraiya Chauraha within the limits of Police Station- Zaidpur, Barabanki, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in an accident involving collision between Tempo No. UP-41-T-5229 and an Auto, in which the petitioner was sitting as a passenger, because of later being hit by the said Tempo due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo, as a result of which the right leg of the petitioner had to be amputated and he became permanently disabled?

2- D;k iz'uxr nq?kZVuk ds le; mijksDr VsEiks foi{kh us'kuy ba';ksjal dEiuh ls chfer Fkk\ ;fn gkW rks izHkkoA

2. Whether at the time of the impugned accident aforesaid Tempo was insured by the National Insurance Company? If yes, its effect.

3- D;k iz'uxr nq?kZVuk ds le; mijksDr VsEiks uEcj ;w0ih0&41&Vh&5229 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr ugha Fkh\ ;fn gkW rks izHkkoA

3. Whether at the time of the impugned accident, driver of the aforesaid Tempo No. UP-41-T-5229 was not having valid and effective driving license? If yes, it's effect.

4- D;k iz'uxr nq?kZVuk ds le; mijksDr VsEiks dks pykus ds fy, oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ijfeV ugha Fkh\ ;fn gkW rks izHkkoA

4. Whether at the time of the impugned accident there was not a valid and effective permit to ply the aforesaid Tempo? If yes, its effect.

5- D;k ;kph foi{khtu ls nq?kZVuk dk izfrdj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdl foi{kh ls rFkk fdruh /kujkf'k\

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the accident from the opposite parties, if yes, then from which opposite party and what amount?" (English translation by Court)

8. Documentary evidence included insurance, registration, driving licence of vehicle in question, and cash memos to show amount spent on medical treatment. A disability certificate was also filed. Oral evidence comprised of statement of Luvkush, as PW-1, and Chandra Shekhar as PW-2. Owner and Insurer did not produce any witness at all.

9. Tribunal answered Issue 1 in favour of Claimant, holding that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by Driver of Tempo and there was no fault on the part of Claimant or driver of Auto Rickshaw in which Claimant was traveling. With regard to Issues 2, 3 and 4, it held that all documents relating to tortfeaser vehicle, namely, registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, fitness certificate etc. were valid and driver also had a valid and effective driving licence.

10. Question of compensation was considered by deciding Issue 5. Tribunal held that though amputation of right leg, technically, is said to be a 50% disability which has also been so verified by competent authority, but considering the fact that Claimant is an unskilled labour and after amputation of his right leg, has become totally incapable of earning his livelihood by working as unskilled labour, hence in his case, it is 100% disability and compensation deserves to be computed accordingly. Taking notional income as Rs. 3000/- per month, Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18. Besides, it has allowed Rs. 32,319/- towards medical expenses and another Rs. 30,000/- under different heads, as we have already noticed above.

11. Learned counsel for appellant contended that there was only 50% disability, duly verified through disability certificate produced by Claimant, hence Tribunal has erred in law in awarding compensation treating it a case of 100% disability. He further argued that in State of U.P., rules have been framed, i.e., U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules, 1998"), in exercise of powers under Sections 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 176 and 230 of Act, 1988 read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Chapter IX thereof deals with Claims Tribunal. By amendment notification dated 26.09.2011, published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 26.09.2011, Rule 220A has been inserted therein, providing fixed amount of compensation payable to Claimant under different heads. It has fixed limit of compensation, under different heads like personal and living expenses of deceased, future prospects and other non pecuniary damages. Sri Agarwal contended that no amount, under different heads, over and above what is contemplated and provided under Rule 220A of U.P. Rules, 1998, can be awarded. He also urged that under Rule 220A(6), rate of interest is 7%. He argued that while computing compensation, Tribunal has no authority to determine any amount on its own, particularly in the light of the fact that delegated legislature has already intervened by fixing amount under different heads and provisions of U.P. Rules, 1998 shall prevail. Amount of compensation determined by Tribunal, not consistent with Rule 220A is without jurisdiction, illegal and hence cannot be sustained.

12. Appeal has been contested by Claimant-Respondent 1 through his counsel Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava. So far as Respondent-owner is concerned, he has not challenged award and qua him award has attained finality.

13. Learned counsel appearing for Claimant-Respondent 1 contended that duty and responsibility of Tribunal is to award compensation which appears to it, "just". What amount of compensation will be "just", has to be determined by Tribunal in view of Section 168 of Act, 1988. This obligation of Tribunal can neither be checked nor arrested nor controlled by subordinate legislature in any manner. Rules, therefore, have to be read as a mere guideline. Ultimate statutory obligation is upon Tribunal to determine "just" amount of compensation and this statutory authority of Tribunal cannot be restricted by even subordinate legislation. He further argued that looking to entire facts and circumstances, Tribunal has rightly found that here is a case of 100% functional disability and loss to Claimant. Amount of compensation has been computed accordingly by applying relevant multiplier, hence no interference is required and appeal should be dismissed.

14. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused relevant statutory provisions as also various authorities cited at Bar as also the record.

15. Claimant is a young budding person having attained majority very recently when met accident. On the fateful day of 03.05.2015, he was just 20 years of age. He was working as unskilled labour when met accident and sustained serious injuries as a result whereof his femur was broken and entire right leg below knee got crushed badly. Doctors found no option but to cause amputation of his right leg. The disability certificate (Paper No. Ga 25/14 dated 05.06.2015) shows that his lower right leg below knee was amputated and his physical disability in medical terms, was found 50%.

16. Tribunal has recorded a finding that amputation of right leg has caused loss of earning to Claimant to the extent of 100% since it is not possible for him to discharge function of labour and he, being unskilled, is not expected to perform any other job.

17. Learned counsel for appellant suggested that when physical disability was only 50%, it is always open to Claimant to do any other sedentary job but when we enquired from him that a person who, in hierarchy of physical labour, at the lowest ebb, being an unskilled labour, what sedentary job can he perform, which may provide him livelihood, he could give no reply whatsoever.

18. The points of determination arisen in this appeal are:

(I) Whether Tribunal has erred in determining compensation treating disability of Claimant, i.e., loss of capacity to earn, to the extent of 100% and applying relevant provisions accordingly or it should have confined to only 50% which was certified vide disability certificate due to amputation of right leg below knee.

(II) Whether compensation under different heads awarded by Tribunal necessarily should be the amount mentioned in Rule 220A of U.P. Rules, 1998 or the said Rules are directory and Tribunal can award appropriate amount of compensation other than what is mentioned in Rule 220A.

(III) Whether power of Tribunal to determine amount of compensation can be controlled, restricted or checked by subordinate legislation, i.e., by enacting rules, laying down specific amounts payable under different heads, in a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 168 of Act, 1988.

19. It is admitted by parties that Claimant sought compensation by filing application under Section 166 of Act, 1988. Relevance of application under Section 166 is not without any reason. Broadly there are three provisions under Act, 1988 whereunder compensation can be awarded to a victim or his legal heirs, as the case may be.

20. Chapter X, having Sections 140 to 144, deals with the provisions relating to "liability without fault", in certain cases. Provisions under this Chapter have been given overriding effect by virtue of Section 144. Section 140(1) provides, where death or permanent disablement has resulted to a person from an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, owner/owners of vehicle shall, jointly and severely, be liable to pay compensation, in respect of such death or disablement, in accordance with said section. Sub-section (2) provides a fixed amount of Rs. 50,000/- in case of death and Rs. 25,000/- in case of permanent disablement. In order to attract Section 140 there is no necessity or requirement to show that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tortfeaser vehicle. It recognizes principle of "no fault liability". The amount awardable thereunder is fixed by legislature itself. Liability is that of owner. Insurer does not come into picture when claim is made under Section 140. This "no fault liability" envisaged in Section 140 is distinct from the "rule of strict liability". In other words, liability under Section 140 is a statutory liability. If an amount under Section 140 has been paid and thereafter claim is made under Section 166, amount paid under Section 140 is liable to be deducted from final amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal. The amount under Section 140 being a fixed/crystallized amount, same has to be considered as part of estate of deceased as held in Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, AIR 2007 SC 1474.

21. Liability under Section 140 has to be borne by owner if vehicle was not insured or there was a breach of conditions of insurance. Though Section 140 makes owner of vehicle responsible for payment of compensation but if vehicle is insured, it is always open to owner to make Insurer liable to pay amount of compensation for the reason that once vehicle is covered under the terms of policy, it is for Insurer to make payment of liability of owner to the extent indicated in policy, be it under Section 166 or Section 140 of Act, 1988.

22. In the scheme of Act, 1988, Chapter X, by virtue of Section 140, contemplates earliest relief to a victim by awarding a fixed amount of compensation, if death or permanent disability has resulted from an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle and for this purpose there is no requirement of pleading or establishing that death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of owner of vehicle.

23. Section 141 declares that right to claim compensation under Section 140 is in addition to any other right to claim compensation on the principle of "fault liability" but it only excludes right to claim compensation under Section 163A. In other words, if a compensation is claimed under "no fault liability" then either it can be an application under Sections 140 or 163A and not both. This is what has also been clarified in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. vs. Hansrajbhai V.Kodala and others, 2001(5) SCC 175.

24. Section 142 classifies injuries which are considered "permanent disablement" for the purpose of Chapter X of Act, 1988.

25. By virtue of Section 143 of Act, 1988, benefit of "no fault liability" under Chapter X has also been extended to a workman to claim compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement either by approaching Workman Compensation Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1923") or Tribunal under Act, 1988, by filing application under Section 140 of Act, 1988.

26. Next provision under Act, 1988 is Section 161 read with Section 163, which is a special provision for compensation in case of a hit and run motor accident where identity of vehicle/ tortfeaser is not ascertainable despite reasonable efforts for the purpose. In this regard Section 163 empowers Central Government to make a scheme for payment of compensation in hit and run accident cases and subject to such scheme, Section 161(3) provides compensation of fixed sum of Rs. 25,000/- in case of death and Rs. 12,500/- in case of grievous injuries.

27. Initially when Act, 1988 was enacted there was no provision for compensation in case of "no fault liability" based on a structured formula which gives a scope for determination of compensation. By Act 54 of 1994, and w.e.f. 14.11.1994, Section 163A was inserted making special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula. This Section commences with a "non-obstente" clause and overrides provisions of Act, 1988 or any other law for the time being in force or instrument having force of law. It says that owner of vehicle or authorized Insurer shall be liable to pay compensation as indicated in Second Schedule in case of death, to legal heirs and in case of permanent disablement, to the victim, as the case may be. Explanation to Section 163A(1) incorporates by Reference, meaning of "permanent disability" as provided in Act, 1923 to the word "permanent disablement" used under Section 163A of Act, 1988. For claiming compensation under Section 163A(1) claimant is not required to plead or establish that accident occurred due to any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of owner of vehicle concern or of any other person.

28. There is a note appended to Second Schedule of Act, 1988, raising a legal fiction stating that injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/ permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule First under Act, 1923. In para 5 of Second Schedule of Act, 1988, provisions of First Schedule of Act, 1923 have been incorporated by reference. To attract Section 163A and to claim compensation thereunder, one has to establish factum of accident, age of deceased/ injured, as the case may be and his/her income. Broadly, these are the only relevant material factors to be brought before Tribunal for determining compensation under Section 163A.

29. However, while determining compensation, Tribunal has to consider relevant factors and it cannot be expected to go by a ready reckoner as held in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996(4) SCC 362.

30. Next provision relating to compensation is Chapter XII, i.e., Section 166 read with Section 165.

31. State Government has empowered by Section 165(1) to constitute one or more Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of, or bodily injury, to persons, arising out of use of motor vehicles or damages of any property of a third party so arising or both.

32. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Section 165(1) may be made and these are:

"(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be."

33. Section 168 requires Tribunal to determine amount of compensation which appears to it, "just" after giving opportunity to parties including Insurer.

34. Application under Section 166 can be filed by heirs and legal representatives of victim, in case of death, and it is not relevant, whether they are financially dependent upon the victim or not. Further no other person can apply for compensation under Section 166, if he/she does not come within the term "legal representative" even if he or she is proved to be financially dependent upon the victim.

35. Term "legal representative" has not been defined in Act, 1988, therefore, Court can look into Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") defining "Legal Representatives".

36. In Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) Court held that under Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of deceased person and includes any person who inter-meddles with the estate of deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character, the person to whom estate devolves on the death of party so suing or sued.

37. Section 166 contemplates application for compensation which is commonly called as "claim on fault liability". The inter relationship of Sections 163A and 166 was considered in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004(5) SCC 385. Court said that Section 163A is for grant of immediate relief and award made thereunder would be in full and final settlement of claim. It is not interim in nature. Amount of compensation payable thereunder is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings unlike the amount paid under Section 140 which can be set off against a higher compensation.

38. In Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121 it was held, where application is filed under Section 163A of Act, 1988, it is possible to calculate compensation on the structured formula basis even where compensation is not specified, with reference to annual income of deceased is not more than Rs. 40,000/-, by applying the formula; (2/3 x AI x M), i.e., two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by multiplier applicable to the age of deceased would be compensation. Several principles of tortious liability are excluded when claim is under Section 163A of Act, 1988 but when application is under Section 166, Tribunal is under a statutory obligation to determine "just" amount of compensation.

39. Section 168 contemplates determination of "just compensation". 'Just' means, fair, reasonable and equitable amount accepted by legal standards. "Just compensation" does not mean perfect or absolute compensation. "Just compensation" principle requires examination of particular situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case.

40. When compensation is to be determined on an application under Section 166, various heads under which damages are to be assessed, have to be looked into by Tribunal and not by merely determining income and applying multiplier.

41. We may consider some broad aspects in the context of injury/ disability and death separately.

Bodily Injury/Disability

42. Here damages are broadly in two categories, i.e., pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money. Pecuniary damages may include: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss.

43. Non-pecuniary damages are such which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculation. They may include; (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

Death

44. In the case of death, for the purpose of compensation claimant(s) must establish: (i) age of deceased; (b) income of deceased; and, (c) number of dependents. Thereupon Tribunal assesses loss of dependency by considering: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at income; (ii) deductions to be made towards personal living expenses of deceased; and, (iii) multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of deceased.

45. For the time being, the multiplier which has to be applied has been settled by Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) and the same reads as under:

		Age Group				Multiplier
 
		15-20			-		18
 
		21-25			-		18
 
		26-30			-		17
 
		31-35			-		16
 
		36-40			-		15
 
		41-45			-		14
 
		46-50			-		13
 
		51-55			-		11
 
		56-60			-		9
 
		61-65			-		7
 
		Above 65		-		5

46. In the case of employed deceased, future prospects are also to be taken into consideration to determine loss of dependency. There are some authorities which provide that compensation under the head of future prospect can be allowed even to self employed persons. Presently this question is pending before a Larger Bench on a reference made in Shashikala and others vs. Gangalakshmamma and others, 2015(9) SCC 150. Besides, under following heads also due compensation need be awarded.

(i) Love and affection (to be considered separately for wife, children and parents)

(ii) Loss of estate

(iii) Loss of consortium

(iv) Funeral expenses

47. In case of death of a housewife, Courts have referred to certain additional heads which should be considered to assess pecuniary value of housewife. In Mehmet vs. Perry, (1977) 2 All ER 52, following heads were stated for grant of damages after assessing pecuniary value of a housewife's services:

"(a) Loss to the family of the wife's housekeeping services.

(b) Loss suffered by the children of the personal attention of their mother, apart from housekeeping services rendered by her.

(c) Loss of the wife's personal care and attention, which the husband had suffered, in addition to the loss of her housekeeping services."

48. This judgment has been referred to with approval in Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2010(9) SCC 218.

49. Besides above, there are two general heads which are applicable to all category of cases, namely, (i) litigation expenses and (ii) interest.

50. We have recapitulated broadly the relevant statutory provisions as also certain general principles for determining amount of compensation under the provisions of Act, 1988.

51. In the present case, application for determining compensation was admittedly filed under Section 166 and, therefore, Tribunal was under an obligation to determine "just amount of compensation". Whether this 'just' amount can be a mathematical calculation, as suggested by learned counsel for appellant, or, have to be determined in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of each and every case, though broadly following statutory guidelines, is a question which requires consideration.

52. Statutory provisions have been deviated while determining compensation on an application filed under Section 166 and a modified multiplier schedule has been provided in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra).

53. The first question is regarding Rule 220A, whether Tribunal can go beyond it or not.

54. Rule 220A of U.P. Rules, 1998 reads as under:

"220-A. Determination of compensation--(1) The multiplier for determination of loss of income payable as compensation in all the claims cases shall be applied as per Second Schedule provided in the Act.

(2) Deduction for personal and living expenses of a deceased, shall be as follows--

(i) The deduction towards personal expenses of a deceased unmarried shall be 50% where the family of a bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, the deduction shall be 1/3 (33.33%).

(ii) The deduction towards personal and living expenses of a married person deceased shall be 1/3rd where dependent family members are 2 to 3 in number, 1/4th where dependent family members are 4 to 6 in number and 1/5th where dependent family members are more than 6 in number.

(3) The future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased as under--

(i) Below 40 years of age 50% of the salary,

(ii) Between 40-50 years of age 30% of the salary,

(iii) More than 50 years of age 20% of the salary,

(iv) When wages not sufficiently proved 50% towards inflation and price index.

(4) The non-pecuniary damages shall also be payable in the compensation as follows--

(i) Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10,000.

(ii) Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 5000 to 10,000.

(iii) Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 5000 to 15,000.

(iv) Funeral expenses, costs of transportation of body Rs. 5000 or actual expenses whichever is less.

(v) Medical expenses actual expenses proved to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal.

(5) For determination of compensation in case of injuries, partial or permanent disability provisions of Second Schedule of the Act shall apply:

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may also award compensation for future prospects according to sub-rule (3) in case of permanent disability depending upon the nature, extent and its effect on the future of disabled claimants. (6) The rate of interest shall be 7% pendente lite and future till the actual payment."

55. As already pointed out U.P. Rules, 1998 have been framed in exercise of powers under certain Sections of Act, 1988 noted above. We may examine these sections separately.

56. Section 28 confers power of making rules upon State Government for the purpose of carrying into effect provisions of Chapter II other than the matters specified in Section 27. Chapter II, contemplates provisions of licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. In sub-section (2) of Section 28 certain specific subjects are mentioned but the same are also in the context of licensing of connected matters therewith.

57. Similarly, Section 38 confers power upon State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect provisions of Chapter III. Sub-section (2) specifies certain subjects which also relates to matters concerned with Chapter III which deals with provisions of licensing of conductors of stage carriages.

58. Then comes Section 65 which confers similar power upon State Government for framing rules for carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV relating to registration of motor vehicles.

59. Next is Section 95 which confers power upon State Government to frame rules as to Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages and conduct of passengers in such vehicles. This Section 95 is part of Chapter V which contains provisions relating to control of transport vehicles.

60. Section 96 confers power upon State Government to frame rules for the purpose of carrying into effect, provisions of Chapter V.

61. Section 107 confers power to frame rule for carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI which deals with special provisions relating to State transport undertakings.

62. Section 111 confers power upon State Government to frame rules regulating construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and Trailers, with respect to all matters other than the matters specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110. This Section 111 is part of Chapter VII which contains provisions of construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles.

63. Section 138 confers power to frame rules upon State Government for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VIII which contains provisions relating to control of traffic.

64. Section 176 is the only relevant provision which takes into its ambit Sections 165 to 174 which are part of Chapter XII relating to Claims Tribunal. Section 176 reads as under:

"176. Power of State Government to make rules.--A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--

(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications;

(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter;

(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal;

(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may by preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and

(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed."

65. Lastly, it is Section 213 which is part of Chapter XIV, i.e., "Miscellaneous". Section 213 confers power upon State Government to establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint officers therefor as it thinks fit.

66. As we have already discussed, Section 176 nowhere specifically confers power upon State Government to make a provision which may control a Claim Tribunal in the matter of determination of amount of compensation under Section 168 which is the judicial adjudicatory authority conferred upon Tribunal by Principal Legislature.

67. In R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1995(1) SCC 551 it was observed that process of determination of amount of compensation involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused but all aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. Process of determination involves a reasonable estimate and a justifiable guess work on the part of Tribunal. In the nature of claims involving fatal accident cases, what is required is determination of "what would have been" and not "what actually is". However, approach has to be pragmatic and sympathetic. Court is expected not only to take fortuitous circumstances and good possibilities of future, the advantages in favour of deceased as well as dependents but also the unexpected misfortunes that may happen. Taking all these aspects into account, a fair and justifiable conclusion, striking a fair balance, tranquilised with a sympathetic chord, but devoid of all emotionalism, sensationalism and melodramatic blood and thunder, has to be arrived at by Tribunal. These factors to some minor modification may apply in the case of permanent disability also.

68. Broadly it has been observed that in deciding, what damages should be awarded to a claimant, same should be tested on three principles, first, that the award should be moderate, just and fair and it should not be oppressive to respondent, second, award should not be punitive, exemplary and extravagant and third, as far as possible similar cases must be decided similarly so that community of public at large may not carry the grievance of discrimination.

69. The question of determination of compensation directly came up before Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011(1) SCC 343. Therein, claimant sustained fracture of both bone of left leg and fracture of left radius in a motor accident on 01.10.1991. Tribunal awarded compensation under the heads of loss of future earning, pain and sufferings, loss of earning during period of treatment, medical expenses, conveyance and special diet. He was awarded total compensation of Rs. 94,700/- and 9% interest. His appeal for enhancement was rejected by Tribunal and ultimately went in appeal to Supreme Court. It observed that scheme of Act, 1988 shows that award must be "just", which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. A person is not only to be compensated for physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. It means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation needs be awarded in "personal injury" cases are detailed in para 6 of the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and it reads as under:

"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."

70. "Disability" refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. "Permanent disability" refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for remainder life of injured. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. "Partial permanent disability" refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. "Total permanent disability" refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident.

71. The percentage of disability certified in medical terms has been considered and Courts have observed that percentage of disability in respect of a part of body does not mean the same percentage with respect to whole body and it may be different. Para 9 of judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) said as under:

"9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%." (emphasis added)

72. Court also castigated that Tribunals wrongly assume that percentage of permanent disability is same in terms of percentage of loss of future earning capacity. The two aspects are different. Relevant observations in para 10 of the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) are reproduced as under:

"10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation." (emphasis added)

73. Court also held that in some cases evidence and assessment may show that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of permanent disability is approximately the same as percentage of permanent disability and in that case said percentage for determination of compensation may be adopted but it is not always. It is in this context Court further said that in order to determine, whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such disability, a Tribunal should consider, and decide, with reference to evidence:

"(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;

(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;

(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person."

74. It was also observed that ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on actual earning capacity involves three steps. First is to ascertain what activities claimant could carry on inspite of permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability. The second is to ascertain claimant's avocation, profession and nature of work before accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or despite permanent disability, claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on and whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

75. The role of Tribunal was elaborated by observing that it is not a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit. It is an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to hold an enquiry into the claim for determining 'just compensation'. Tribunal should take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess 'just compensation'. Court also observed that when a doctor gives evidence about percentage of permanent disability, Tribunal must find out whether such percentage of disability is functional disability with reference to whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. In para 19 of the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) Court summarized the principles in respect of "permanent disability" and assessment of compensation and in para 20 it gives certain illustrations in regard to assessment of loss of future earning. Same are reproduced as under:

"19. We may now summarize the principles discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following illustrations:

Illustration 'A': The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident Rs. 36,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) Rs. 5400/-

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17

d) Loss of future earnings: (5400x17) Rs. 91,800/-

Illustration 'B': The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/-per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident Rs. 36,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) Rs. 27,00/-

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17

d) Loss of future earnings: (27,000x17) Rs. 4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C': The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an engineer Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) Rs. 42,000/-

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) 18

d) Loss of future earnings: (42,000x18) Rs. 7,56,000/-

Note: The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra).

76. A three Judge Bench considered the question of "just compensation" in a case of permanent disability in Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2014(3) SCC 210. Court observed that besides determination of damages under the head "loss of income" and "medical expenses", Tribunal must also award compensation under the head "future treatment" and "pain and sufferings" and where there is requirement of an attendant, cost of attendant should also be included for award of compensation.

77. In Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2014(2) SCC 735, claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 14.02.2008 to lower end of right femur and his right leg was amputed. Medical certificate, verified 24% disability to upper limb and 85% to lower limb. Claimant therein was a Vegetable Vendor. Tribunal allowed compensation treating disability of whole body at 30%, which was enhanced by High Court to 65%. Supreme Court said that a Vegetable Vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place but the occupation of vegetable vending is not confined to selling vegetables from a particular location. It rather involves procuring vegetables from whole-sale market or farmers and then selling it off in retail market. This often involves selling vegetables in cart which requires 100% mobility. Court said that even if it is presumed that vegetable vending by claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to market place which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. Court further observed that in manual labour cases, loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood. In that case Court upheld disability of 85% since claimant was capable to earn his livelihood once he is brought in market place.

78. In Rajan Vs. Soly Sebastian and another, 2015(10) SCC 506 claimant was a driver and in a road accident sustained injury causing blurred vision. Doctor certified body disability to the extent of 60%. High Court treated disability to the extent of 100% since it was not possible for claimant to earn his livelihood by working as driver and there was a total permanent disablement to the extent of 100% in respect of earning capacity. Supreme Court also upheld permanent disability with regard to earning capacity as 100%.

79. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2014(5) SCC 330 claimant sustained injuries resulting in amputation of right leg above knee. As per Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of Act, 1923, loss of earning capacity was assessed as 70% and Tribunal determined compensation accordingly. Claimant was an Embroider, a skilled workman. Court upheld 70% disability and loss of earning capacity. One more aspect was added that claimant may need assistance in order to travel and move around, regular check-ups and will most likely use a crutch to walk, all of which will incur expenses. It is also a factor which is bound to cause loss of marriage prospects, which is a major loss, keeping in mind the young age of claimant. Thus under the head of loss of future prospect, Court awarded compensation separately to Rs. 75,000/-. It was also observed that amputation, i.e., loss of a limb causes a profusion of distress and claimant has to deal with same for rest of his life. He might have to deal with discrimination and stigma in society due to the fact that he is an amputee. Claimant, therefore, was also allowed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. The injury has permanently disabled claimant, reducing his enjoyment of life and full pursuit of all activities he engaged in prior to accident.

80. In the matter of death, of late, usual award of compensation under the heads "loss of life" and "loss of consortium" is to the extent of Rs. 100000/- under each head; and in respect of loss of love, it is for each category of legal representative, i.e., children behind wife. Under the head of "funeral expenses", 25,000/- is being awarded very frequently. Interest is being allowed at the rate of 9%. Some of the recent authorities in this regard are, Kanhsingh Vs. Tukaram, 2015(1) SCALE 366; Kalpanaraj and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2015(2) SCC 764; Asha Verman and others Vs. Maharaj Singh and others, 2015(4) SCALE 329; and, Jitendra Khimshanker Trivedi and others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015(4) SCC 237.

81. In the light of aforesaid concept of determination of compensation which should be "just" and having been held, a statutory obligation of Tribunal, we find it difficult to accept that such statutory obligation of Tribunal can be restricted, checked or controlled by subordinate delegated legislation, by making a rule, specifying a particular amount and excluding scope of determination of "just compensation" under respective heads for which rule is framed.

82. A delegated/ subordinate legislation neither can create substantive rights and obligations nor can enhance efficacy or reduce normal functional ambit of principal legislation. A Full Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar Sah and another Vs. The District Judge and others, AIR 1976 All 328 held that when a rule framing power is conferred upon State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act, it does not give carte blanche to enact independent legislation. The expression "to carry out the purposes of the Act" means to enable its provisions to be effectively administered. They connote that rules are to be confined to the same field of operation as that marked out by Act itself. Court further observed in para 11 as under:

"11. .... This power will authorise the provision of subsidiary means of carrying into effect what is incidental to the execution of its specific provisions. But such a power will not support attempts to widen the purposes of the Act, to add new and different means of carrying them out or to depart from or vary the plan which the legislature has adopted to attain its ends Shanahan v. Scott (96 Com WLR 245). In other words a subordinate law cannot substantially modify the scheme or policy of the Act." (emphasis added)

83. In Global Energy Limited and another Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2009(15) SCC 570, Court in para 25 of judgment, with regard to power of delegated legislation, said as under:

"25. It is now a well settled principle of law that the rule making power "for carrying out the purpose of the Act" is a general delegation. Such a general delegation may not be held to be laying down any guidelines. Thus, by reason of such a provision alone, the regulation making power cannot be exercised so as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities which are not contemplated in terms of the provisions of the said Act." (emphasis added)

84. In Kunj Behari Lal Butail vs. State of H.P., 2000(3) SCC 40, a three Judge Bench of Court, said:

"14. We are also of the opinion that a delegated power to legislate by making rules "for carrying out the purposes of the Act" is a general delegation without laying down any guidelines; it cannot be so exercised as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions of the Act itself."

85. As we have already noted that under Section 176 of Act, 1988, power of framing rules in the context of Sections 165 to 174 has been conferred but subjects specified nowhere talks of fixation of amount towards compensation by way of rule, on the part of State Government. When Act contemplates and confers this power upon Tribunal, since compensation has to be determined by process of adjudication, it cannot be said that by fixing certain amount towards compensation under different heads by State Government by framing rule, it has exercised its power to carry out performance of relevant provisions of Act. On the contrary, it runs otherwise. Since there is no challenge to the rules in the case in hand, therefore, we find it appropriate to read Rule 220A, at the best, as a guideline, but ultimate adjudication/ determination has to be made by Tribunal, on the question of amount of compensation which is "just" and payable to claimant.

86. Section 168 confers power upon Tribunal to determine "just" compensation. We are of the view that State Government in exercise of rule framing power cannot control, and exclude scope of determination by Tribunal of "just compensation" under various heads. The attempt of rule making authority in controlling function of Tribunal making a rule, is beyond its competence and would render such Rules ultra vires of Section 168. Hence, in order to read rules in question in harmony, we have no option but to hold that Rule 220A of U.P. Rules, 1998 lays down only a guideline with respect to award of compensation under different heads but ultimate authority is that of Tribunal to determine and award appropriate compensation which is "just".

87. Now so far as question of 100% disability is concerned, Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant is an unskilled labourer. Amputed leg has resulted in a total loss of earning capacity. Now the claimant will require assistance throughout his life. Hence a long term addtional expense has got burdened upon him. Tribunal has rightly discussed that disability is not to be judged from mere medical disability certificate issued by doctor but it is the bodily disability and capacity to earn livelihood.

88. Learned counsel for appellant when insisted upon that amputation of one leg would not mean that claimant cannot work at all, we asked him, whether appellant, a very big public sector undertaking, would like to provide an appropriate employment to claimant, if it is of the view that claimant still has not lost his total capacity to earn livelihood and if that can be offered, claimant may be persuaded to give up his case for compensation learned counsel said that appellant-Corporation, if accept it, will become a hub of such persons and this will cause serious obstruction in its functioning.

89. Before parting, we also find it appropriate to place on record a suggestion that now a days in the cases of amputation of limb etc., artificial limbs are available, with the help whereof, level of dependency of disabled person can get reduced to some or large extent.

90. We can take judicial notice of the facts that in some cases artificial limbs have helped disabled person in removing his dependency, many a times, completely. Some persons, whose leg/legs got amputed, we have illustrations available, where with use of artificial limbs, they have achieved expertise in Athletics, Classical Dance and other vocations. Purpose of social welfare legislation is to find out ways and means to help the sufferer in all possible fields. In case of disability of a person, if Tribunal finds, with medical advice, that artificial limb can procure his self dependency, all possible attempts should be made to get it executed and whatever necessary expenses, it require, must be treated to be a part of compensation which should be allowed against the persons liable to pay compensation. In this case also we could have resorted to this exercise but this is not an appeal of claimant but has been filed by Insurer with a view to get quantum of compensation, already awarded, reduced and it will not be appropriate for us to consider it other way. However, we direct various Motor Accident Claims Tribunals that they should explore possibility of getting artificial limbs implanted and to award cost and expenses thereof also by way of compensation so that compensation under the head of Assistance etc. may get diluted and claimant, after implantation of artificial limb, may have a satisfaction of earning livelihood honourably by his sheer dint and labour, despite disability.

91. We direct Registrar General to circulate a copy of this judgment to respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State.

92. In the result, questions formulated above are answered against appellant.

93. Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed.

94. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 21.3.2017 AK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court