# Ashok Kumar v. Smt. Chhinamalu & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 654
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-19
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 235 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-v-smt-chhinamalu-ors-48569
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section - 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Injured Claimant - future loss of income -
claimant, a mechanical engineer in Navy,
was injured in road accident and his right
leg was amputated - Tribunal held that as
the appellant is still in service and getting
salary as per rules, he cannot be said to
have suffered loss of income - Held - even
if a person, who is in employment but has
suffered due to accidental injuries, he
would be entitled to claim compensation -
5 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Chhinamalu & Ors.
655
In the present case due to amputation of
leg, promotions were not granted to the
appellant and due to denial of promotion,
he would have future financial loss during
service and even after service, he will
have loss of post retirement pensionary
benefits, hence there is a big loss of future
income,
which
should
be
granted
-
claimant, a mechanical engineer in Navy,
was aged about 22 years at the time of
accident hence for loss of future earning,
50% would be added to the income &
multiplier of 18 would be applied (Para
19)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
claimant injured in road accident & his
right leg was amputated - disability
certificate issued by competent doctor
showed permanent disability to the extent
of 80% but the learned Tribunal reduced
the percentage of disability to 50% - Held
- evidence goes to show that the appellant
is working in his office and getting salary,
hence
his
functional
disability
is
considered to the tune of 40% (Para 19)

C. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Injured Claimant - claimant, a mechanical
engineer in Navy, was injured in road
accident and his right leg was amputated -
service certificate on record shows total
salary of the appellant at Rs. 15,198/- per
month out of which Rs. 2,313/- got
deducted towards various deductions -
salary after deduction is Rs. 12,885/- per
month - amount payable to the appellant
as
compensation
-
For
permanent
disability : Rs. 16,69,952 - Artificial limb :
Rs. 1,00,000 - Pain shock suffering : Rs.
1,00,000 - Loss of amenities : Rs. 2,00,000
- Special diet : Rs. 20,000 - Total : Rs.
20,89,852
-
Respondent
Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited (Para 23)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the claimants and rest of the amount will
be kept in fixed deposit in the name of
claimants, minor daughter and mother for a
period of three years as more than eight
years have elapsed after the accident have
taken place.

14. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers.

15. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total
amount of interest, accrued on the
principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are
entitled
to deduct
appropriate
amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted
at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the
amount of interest does not exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry
of this Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimant to withdraw the amount without
producing
the
certificate
from
the
concerned Income- Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of
2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another) while disbursing the
amount.

16.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly as per above direction. The
Tribunal shall draw fresh award as per the
modification made herein. The Tribunals in
the State shall follow the direction of this
Court as herein aforementioned as far as
disbursement is concerned, it should look
into the condition of the litigant and the
pendency of the matter and not blindly
apply the judgment of A.V. Padma
(supra). The same is to be applied looking
to the facts of each case.
----------
(2022)05ILR A654
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 235 of 2014

Ashok Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chhinamalu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri B.P. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Sri Amaresh
Sinha, Sri Anubhav Sinha

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section - 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Injured Claimant - future loss of income -
claimant, a mechanical engineer in Navy,
was injured in road accident and his right
leg was amputated - Tribunal held that as
the appellant is still in service and getting
salary as per rules, he cannot be said to
have suffered loss of income - Held - even
if a person, who is in employment but has
suffered due to accidental injuries, he
would be entitled to claim compensation -
5 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Chhinamalu & Ors.
655
In the present case due to amputation of
leg, promotions were not granted to the
appellant and due to denial of promotion,
he would have future financial loss during
service and even after service, he will
have loss of post retirement pensionary
benefits, hence there is a big loss of future
income,
which
should
be
granted
-
claimant, a mechanical engineer in Navy,
was aged about 22 years at the time of
accident hence for loss of future earning,
50% would be added to the income &
multiplier of 18 would be applied (Para
19)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
claimant injured in road accident & his
right leg was amputated - disability
certificate issued by competent doctor
showed permanent disability to the extent
of 80% but the learned Tribunal reduced
the percentage of disability to 50% - Held
- evidence goes to show that the appellant
is working in his office and getting salary,
hence
his
functional
disability
is
considered to the tune of 40% (Para 19)

C. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Injured Claimant - claimant, a mechanical
engineer in Navy, was injured in road
accident and his right leg was amputated -
service certificate on record shows total
salary of the appellant at Rs. 15,198/- per
month out of which Rs. 2,313/- got
deducted towards various deductions -
salary after deduction is Rs. 12,885/- per
month - amount payable to the appellant
as
compensation
-
For
permanent
disability : Rs. 16,69,952 - Artificial limb :
Rs. 1,00,000 - Pain shock suffering : Rs.
1,00,000 - Loss of amenities : Rs. 2,00,000
- Special diet : Rs. 20,000 - Total : Rs.
20,89,852
-
Respondent
Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited (Para 23)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Karthik Subramanian Vs B. Sarath Babu &
ors., 2021 (2) TAC 2 1

2. Erudhaya Priya Vs State Express Transport
Corp. Ltd., 2020 (3) TAC 1

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Satish
Chandra Sharma & anr., Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.14350 of 2019, decided on
23.2.2022

4. Shivdhar Kumar Vashiya Vs Ranjeet Singh &
ors., Civil Appeal No.433 of 2022, decided on
21.1.2022

5. Anisa Begum Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
ors., F.A.F.O. No.1418 of 2007, decided on
23.3.2022

6. Anoop Maheshwari Vs Shiv Kumar Singh &
ors., FAFO No.3750 of 2009, decided on
7.3.2022

7. Rashmita Biswal & ors. Vs Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.,
2021 0 Supreme (SC) 805

8. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi 3 Transport
Corporation & anr., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
& Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & anr., 2010 0
Supreme (SC) 991

9. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Ashwathanarayan S. Sharma,
1993 (1) G.L.H.1044

10. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & anr. (2011) 1
SCC 343

11. Syed. Sadiq & ors. Vs Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC
735

12. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0)
AIJEL-SC 65725

13. K. Suresh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
& ors. (2012) 12 scc 274,

14. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lavkush &
anr., 2018 (1) TAC 431
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi
& ors., 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105

16. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.P. Verma for the
appellant, Sri Anubhav Sinha for New
India Assurance Company Limited and Sri
Ashok Kumar Srivastava for the National
Insurance Company Limited.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 28.10.2013 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District
Judge,
Court
Room
No.20,
Agra
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P. No. 157 of 2010 awarding a sum
of Rs. 7,38,000/- with interest at the rate of
7% as compensation.

3. The brief relevant facts are that a
claim petition was filed by the appellantclaimant, who was injured in road accident
and his right leg was amputated. It is
averment in plaint that the injured was
serving in Indian Navy. On 9.4.2009 he
was going with one Satish Kumar on
motorcycle bearing no. AP04G 1840 from
guard-room to his unit. Motorcycle was
being driven by Satish Kumar. A car
No.AP31TV-0145 came from opposite
direction and by driving rashly and
negligently its driver dashed the car with
the motorcycle. In this accident, the
appellant sustained serious injuries and his
right leg was amputated. At the time of
accident, he was mechanical engineer in
Navy and was getting salary Rs. 18,000/-
per month.

4. The accident is not in dispute.
Insurance company did not object to the
liability to pay compensation except the
quantum. Issue of negligence has not been
challenged by respondent. Now, there
remains only the question of quantum of
compensation to be decided.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that in the accident, the appellant
sustained serious injuries. His right leg
sustained compound fractures. At last
during the treatment, the leg of the
appellant was amputated from the knee
joint and he became permanently disabled.
It is further submitted that disability
certificate showing permanent disability to
the extent of 80% was issued by competent
doctor but the learned Tribunal reduced the
percentage of disability to 50% and hence
less compensation was awarded. It was also
submitted that the appellant was treated in
government hospital and his expenditure on
treatment were Rs. 15,000/- which was not
granted by the Tribunal.

6.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant submitted that the Tribunal
reduced the percentage of disability to
50% for body as a whole even then
compensation for disability was not
awarded as per decisions cited by
claimant and it was held by the Tribunal
that as the appellant is still in service
and getting salary as per rules, he cannot
be said to have suffered loss of income.
He had loss of income only for going
and coming back to the office and the
same was considered only Rs. 3,000/-
per month as future loss of income. It is
submitted by learned Counsel that due to
amputation of leg, promotions were not
granted to the appellant hence there is a
big loss of future income, which should
be granted.
5 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Chhinamalu & Ors.
657

7. Learned Counsel for the appellantclaimant has heavily relied on the decisions
of
the
Apex
Court
in
Karthik
Subramanian Vs. B. Sarath Babu and
others, 2021 (2) TAC 1, Erudhaya Priya
Vs.
State
Express
Transport
Corporation Ltd., 2020 (3) TAC 1 The
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Satish Chandra Sharma and another,
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.14350 of
2019,
decided
on
23.2.2022,
and
Shivdhar Kumar Vashiya Vs. Ranjeet
Singh and others, Civil Appeal No.433 of
2022, decided on 21.1.2022, and has
contended that even if a person, who is in
employment but has suffered due to
accidental injuries, he would be entitled to
claim compensation. The learned Counsel
for the appellant has further relied on the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of
Anisa Begum mother of deceased Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Lted and
others, F.A.F.O. No.1418 of 2007, decided
on 23.3.2022 and the same would enure for
the benefit of the appellant also and the
decision in Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Shiv
Kumar Singh and others, FAFO No.3750
of 2009, decided on 7.3.2022 will also
enure for the benefit of the appellant. It is
also submitted that only Rs. 50,000/- was
awarded for pain shock suffering and a
very meagre amount of Rs. 20,000/- was
awarded for loss of amenities.

8. Learned Counsel for the Insurance
company
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions made by the appellant and
submitted that the certificate of 80%
disability is not for the whole body
disability of the appellant. The appellant is
government servant and still working in his
office as before the accident. Hence, he has
no loss of earning capacity. Hence, the
learned Tribunal has rightly considered
Rs.3,000/- as loss of future income. The
compensation on other heads is also
sufficiently awarded which call for no
interference by this Court.

9. Learned Counsel has relied on the
decision in Rashmita Biswal and others
Vs.
Divisional
Manager,
National
Insurance Company Ltd. And another,
2021 0 Supreme (SC) 805, Smt. Sarla
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, reported in
2009 ACJ 1298 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay
Kumar and another, 2010 0 Supreme (SC)
991.

10. The learned Counsel for the
respondents has also relied on the judgment
of
Satish
Chandra
(supra)
and
has
contended that the appellant has been
adequately compensated and the injury
certificate was not for entire body. He is
not immobilized. He can perform his daily
job and, therefore, no amount be added and
the appeal requires to be dismissed (Union
of
India
and
others
Versus
Ashwathanarayan S. Sharma, 1993 (1)
G.L.H.1044 ).

11. It is admitted fact that appellant
was government servant in armed forces.
The appellant is still working in his office.
The claimant would loss future income. A
perusal of impugned judgment shows that
just compensation is not awarded by the
Tribunal.

12.

Before
computation
of
compensation, it is worth mentioning that
the principles regarding the determination
of just compensation, contemplated under
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act
(hereinafter
referred to as ''MV Act') are well settled in
view of the decision in Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar and another, reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed. Sadiq and
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others Vs. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Company Limited, (2014)
2 SCC 735 Injuries caused deprivation to
the body, which entitles the claimant to
claim
damages.
It
is
impossible
to
compensate human sufferings and personal
deprivation with money. However, this is
what the MV Act enjoins upon the courts to
do. The Court has to make a judicious
attempt to award damages so that the
claimant or the victim may be compensated
for the loss suffered by him. The damages
may vary according to the gravity of the
injuries sustained by the claimant in an
accident. On account of injury, the claimant
may suffer consequential loss such as loss
of earnings as well as future earnings,
medical expenditure, special diet and
attendant charges etc. Victim may suffer
non-pecuniary damages also in the form of
loss of pleasure of life by particular limb of
the body. In this way, damages can be
pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary. The
Court/Tribunal should keep in mind that
compensation
awarded
must
be
just
compensation
because
the
damages
assessed for personal injuries should be
substantial to compensate the injured for
the deprivation suffered by him throughout
his life.

13. Recently the Apex Court in Kajal
Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0)
AIJEL-SC 65725, has quoted pertinent
observations from a very old case Philips
Vs. Western Railway Company (1874)
4QBD 406 as under:

"You cannot put the plaintiff back
again into his original position, but you
must bring your reasonable common sense
to bear, and you must always recollect that
this is the only occasion on which
compensation can be given. The plaintiff
can never sue again for it. You have,
therefore, now to give him compensation
once and for all. He has done no wrong, he
has suffered a wrong at the hands of the
defendants and you must take care to give
him full fair compensation for that which
he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals
should always remember that the measures
of damages in all these cases "should be
such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say
that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure."

14. Hon'ble Apex Court has further
quoted pertinent observations from a very
old case H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard
1963 2 WLR 1359 as under:

"Money may be awarded so that
something tangible may be procured to
replace something else of the like nature
which has been destroyed or lost. But
money cannot renew a physical frame that
has been battered and shattered. All that
Judges and courts can do is to award sums
which
must
be
regarded
as
giving
reasonable compensation. In the process
there must be the endeavour to secure some
uniformity in the general method of
approach. By common assent awards must
be reasonable and must be assessed with
moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently
desirable that so far as possible comparable
injuries
should
be
compensated
by
comparable awards.

In the same case Lord Devlin
observed that the proper approach to the
problem was to adopt a test as to what
contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the
wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval that
he has done the fair thing", which should be
kept in mind by the court in determining
compensation in personal injury cases."
5 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Chhinamalu & Ors.
659

15. Section 168 of MV Act stipulates
that there should be grant
of just
compensation. Thus, it becomes challenge
for a Court of law to determine just
compensation which should not be bonanza
for the claimant/victim and at the same
time it should not be too meagre.

16. The Apex Court in Rajkumar Vs
Ajay Kumar and others (2011) 1 SCC 343
has laid down the heads under which
compensation is to be awarded for personal
injuries which is as follows:

"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.

17. In K. Suresh v. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2012)
12 scc 274, Hon'ble the Apex Court has
held as follows :

"2...There
cannot
be
actual
compensation for anguish of the heart or
for
mental
tribulations.
The
quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which
has to be in the realm of realistic
approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
the Act) stipulates that there should be
grant of just compensation. Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to
determine just compensation which is
neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance."

18. We have perused the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Lavkush and another, 2018 (1) TAC 431,
in which the concept of just compensation
is discussed elaborately.
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The injured appellant was getting
salary from his office for which he has
produced salary certificate on record.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that he was getting salary of Rs.
18,000/- per month. The service certificate
on record shows total salary of the
appellant at Rs. 15,198/- per month out of
which Rs. 2,313/- got deducted towards
various deductions. Hence, salary after
deduction is Rs. 12,885/- per month which
is
relevant
for
computation
of
compensation. PW-3 is an employee of
Indian Navy, who had appeared before the
learned Tribunal and deposed that due to
amputation of leg, the appellant could not
get promotions and due to denial of
promotion, he would have future financial
loss during service and even after service,
he will have loss of post retirement
pensionary benefits. In our opinion, this is
big loss of future earning. Hence, learned
Tribunal
has
committed
error
by
considering only Rs. 3,000/- per month
towards
loss
of
future
earning
and
computed it in a wrong way. Hence, for
loss of future earning, 50% would be added
to the income as held by the Apex Court
and also in case titled National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105, which
would be Rs.6,442/-, hence, total income
comes to Rs.19,327/-. The age of the
appellant was 22 years at the time of
accident hence as per Sarla Verma's case,
the multiplier of 18 would be applied,
which would be Rs.41,74,632/-. Although
the certificate of disability is issued which
shows the disability to the extent of 80%
but this is not the whole body disability.
The evidence goes to show that the
appellant is working in his office and
getting salary as per Rules hence his
functional disability is considered to the
tune of 40%, hence, he would be entitled to
get Rs. 16,69,852/- for permanent disability
and future earning. The appellant would
also be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- for
artificial limb and for future medicines
(post retirement) Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain,
shock, suffering. Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be
granted to the appellant for loss of
amenities. The Tribunal has granted Rs.
20,000/- for special diet which we affirm.
As far as the submission of appellant is
concerned that he has spent Rs.15,000/- for
treatment, learned Tribunal has held in this
regard that no such bills or receipt is filed
on record. We concur with the findings of
the Tribunal as far as medical expenses are
concerned as he may have been reimbursed
by his employer.

20. On the basis of the above
discussions, the amount payable to the
appellant as compensation is computed
herein below:-

(i) For permanent disability : Rs.
16,69,952/-

(ii) Artificial limb
 :
Rs.
1,00,000/-

(iii) Pain shock suffering
: Rs.
1,00,000/-

(iv) Loss of amenities

 :
Rs. 2,00,000/-

(v) Special diet

: Rs.
20,000/-

Total
:
Rs.
20,89,852/-
(Rs.20,90,000/- round up)

21. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, the interest should be 7.5% in
view of the latest decision of the Apex
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
5 All. Smt. Vinita Kesarwani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
661
Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2)
T.A.C. 705 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court
has held as under :

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

22. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

23. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the amount is deposited within a period
of 12 weeks from today. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

24.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein.
----------
(2022)05ILR A661
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 316 of 2012

Smt. Vinita Kesarwani & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Neeraj Singh, Sri Sharve Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, Sri S.N. Mishra,
Sri Siddharth Jaiswal

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 168 - Motor Accident claim -
Negligence - on the intervening night of
7/8.3.1998 at 00.30 am truck being driven
rashly and negligently dashed the Maruti
Car
coming
from
opposite
direction
causing instantaneous death of driver of
Maruti car- Deceased was 39 years of the
age at the time of accident, was doing
wholesale trading in fruits and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month - deceased
was survived by his widow, two minor
children and mother - Held - there was a
head on collision between car and the
truck - Tribunal rightly held the deceased
negligent to the tune of 50% - Deceased
income in the Income Tax Return was Rs.
1,20,000, the income of the deceased
would be considered to be Rs.1,20,000 per
annum - as per postmortem report, the
deceased was 40 years of age, hence,
addition towards future loss of income
would be 25% - accident took place in the
year 1998, the deceased was survived by
two minor children and widow Court
awarded Rs.50,000/- to the widow and
Rs.40,000/- each to the minor children -
rate of interest should be 3% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount if deposited and till then 6% if the
same has not been paid along with
interest (Para 14, 15, 16, 18, 20)