The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagat Dev Singh And Another on 13 May, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagat Dev Singh And Another on 13 May, 2026

1. Substitution application has been filed in Appeal No.791 of 2011 seeking substitution on account of the death of the respondent no.1 whose legal heirs are already on record along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.

2. Both the applications are allowed. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

3. Let necessary incorporation be carried out during the course of the day.

Order on Appeals

4. Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur appearing on behalf of the appellant in Appeal No.865 of 2011 and Nigamendra Shukla who appears for the respondents claimants in the said appeal. I have also heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla appearing on behalf of the appellant in Appeal No.791 of 2011 and Sri Mayank Kumar Singh, who appears for the respondents.

5. As both the appeals arising out of same accident, the same are considered and decided by means of the common judgment.

6. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the claim petition are that on 07.11.2008, the appellant Jagat Dev Singh was going along with her relative Malti Devi on a motorcycle, which met with an accident with a TATA 407 Truck No.UP 86-9684 which was being driven rashly and negligently which resulted in substantial injuries to Sri Jagat Dev Singh and the death of the pillion rider namely Malti Devi. Two claim petitions were filed seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by Jagat Dev Singh and by the legal heirs of Malti Devi claiming compensation on account of her death.

7. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal framed issues including the issue with regard to negligence. While recording the finding on the said issue, the trial court considered the testimony of Jagat Dev Singh who had deposed that the vehicle Tata 407 was being driven rashly and negligently in zigzag manner and despite the driver of the motorcycle trying to avoid the accident and going off the road, still the Truck collided with the motorcycle, which resulted in accident. The said statement is on record. In the cross examination by the Insurance Company, there is no material argued by the counsel for the respondents to discredit the said testimony or in any way established any material to suggest contributory negligence. The said cross examination is also on record.

8. In the light of the said, the counsel for the appellant argues that it was a case of contributory negligence as it was a head-on collision between the motorcycle and the truck. He further argues that the amount of compensation awarded in both the cases are highly excessive particularly the evidence to establish the income of the injured Jagat Dev Singh is not material and does not justify the income as assessed by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. It also flows from the record that Sri Jagat Dev Singh suffered amputation of his leg for which an artificial limb was procured on which expenses were incurred.

9. The counsel for the appellant in appeal no. 791 of 2011 argues that the amount awarded is excessive considering the fact that the respondent was a housewife having no income and was aged about 52 years. It also bears from the record that a cross objection/appeal for enhancement has been filed by the claimant of appeal no.791 of 2011, however no cross appeal has been filed in Appeal no.860 of 2011. However, the counsel for the claimants in Appeal No.860 of 2011 argues that irrespective of a cross objection/appeal, the claimants can plead the awarding of "just compensation" as is the mandate of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He places reliance on the judgment in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others; (2018) 18 SCC 130; National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) TAC 673 Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 decided on 15.04.2009. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Sahai vs. Haryana Roadways and another; 2026 SCC Online SC 651 and in particular para 30 and 31 of the said judgement is relied upon.

10. In the light of the said, firstly this court is to decide as to whether the submission with regard to contributory negligence merits acceptance?, a perusal of the evidence on record of the injured, who was driving the motorcycle, clearly reveals that the Vehicle TATA 407 was being driven in a zigzag manner. The cross examination of the said witness, does not discredit the said testimony rather reinforces it. Apart from the same, no evidence was adduced at the instance of the owner and the Insurance Company to establish the contributory negligence, as was pleaded and argued before this Court. Thus, the submission with regard to contributory negligence, as argued by the counsel for the appellant, is contrary to the evidence on record and is liable to be rejected.

11. Coming to the compensation and whether, the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of any cross appeal in FAFO No.860 of 2011, this aspect has already been considered in detail by this court United India Insurance Co. Limited vs. Smt. Sunita Devi and 09 others; 2026 AHC 103621. Thus, the submission to that extent also merits rejection.

12. Coming to the just compensation, which should be awarded as pleaded by the counsel for the respondents, the income as assessed by the Tribunal of Sri Jagat Dev Singh was at Rs.6000/- per month (Rs.4000/- being earned by the injured and received from the Oil Company where he was working and the balance Rs.2000/- being earned by him from the property dealing business). In this regard the counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no material evidence to justify the same, in fact the certificate of Rs.4000/- issued by the Filling Station, was denied by the owner itself and there was no evidence with regard to Rs.2000/- being earned by the injured out of the property dealing business. Thus, the said submission merits rejection for the following reason : -

13. The perusal of the Annexure no.6, which contains the testimony of the property dealer where the injured was working prior to his sustaining the incident, clearly demonstrated that Rs.2000/- was being earned. The cross examination of the said witness, does not discredit the said testimony. Similarly, the testimony of the Filling Station where the injured was working prior to the accident disclosed that he was being paid Rs.4200/- per month. Thus, the assessment of income earned by the victim at Rs.6000/- per month by the Tribunal in the impugned award does not warrant any re-visitation. The Tribunal has however erred in not considering the future prospects of the claimant which are 40% of the income as assessed in view of the law as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra). Thus, the amounts to which the respondents in Appeal No.860 of 2011 is entitled to work as under

Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded

1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month

2.

Adding 40% as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), Rs.8400/- per month

3. 70% of the said amount towards disability Rs.5880/-

4. Net yearly income Rs.70,560/-

5. As the claimant was aged about 30 years, multiplier of '17' has been rightly applied.

Rs.70,560 x 17 =Rs.11,99,520/-

14. Apart from the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.2,82,996/- awarded towards cost of artificial limb and other medical expenses, needs to be revisited in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Sahai (supra) which provides for change of prosthetic limb after every five years, as such, the amount granted towards prosthetic limb is reworked to Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) considering the age of the victim and the fact that he would require change of said limb after every five years. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.11,99,520/- plus Rs.10,00,000/- = Rs.21,99,520/-.(Rupees Twenty One lacs Ninety Nine thousand Five hundred Twnety only).

15. As regards the compensation payable to the legal heirs of Malti Devi of Appeal No.791 of 2011 who died in the accident and was aged about 52 years and her annual income was assessed at Rs.36,000/- as she was a house wife, on which one-third was directed to be deducted, the same is without any foundation. The income of the house wife was notionally accepted to be Rs.3000/- in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa And Others v. State Of Bihar And Others (2001 INSC 370). The accident in the present case took place in the year 2008. Thus, the amount of income are assessed in the case of house wife as semi-skilled worker at Rs.5000/- per month. Thus, the amount awarded shall work as under:

Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded

1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.5,000/- per month

2. Adding 10% towards future prospects in the light of the judgement in Pranaya Sethi's case (supra) Rs.5500/- per month

3. Net yearly income Rs.66,000/-

4. Deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses Rs.66,000 x 1/3 = Rs.22,000/- After deduction :Rs.66000 - Rs.22000 =Rs.44,000/-

5. Applying multiplier of '11' Rs.44,000 x 11 =Rs.4,84,000/-

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 3) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) Rs.18,500 + Rs.18,500 + Rs.1,45,500 = Rs.1,82,500/-

7. Total amount of compensation (Sr.No.5 + Sr.No.6) Rs. 6,66,500/-

16. The amount as recorded above shall be paid by the insurance company to the respondents of FAFO No.860 of 2011 and FAFO No.791 of 2011 respectively along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment/realisation. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today and the amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimant.

17. 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

18. With the said observations, both the appeals are allowed.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.) May 13, 2026 VNP/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court