# General Manager, M/S. Allahabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., District Allahabad v. Suresh Chandra Mishra

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-29
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3250 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/general-manager-m-s-allahabad-dugdh-utpadak-sahkari-sangh-ltd-district-50380
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Act, 1923-Section 30- Commissioner has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,38,340/-
with
9%
rate
of
interest-Challenge
against- when the claimant was on job at
that point of time he fell down from the
staircase of the platform-The claimant /
respondent sustained multiple injures on
his left lower limb and on his spinal cord
was also damaged-disability due to the
accidental
fall
is
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
and
under
the
provisions of Section 4(1)(C) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 -
during the pendency of this litigation the
original claimant has passed away-The
amount
has
already
been
deposited
without interest -The claimants would be
at least entitled as per Section 4(2)(A) of
the Act where the employee has to be
granted actual medical expenses and pain
shock to the claimant-Hence, the amount
of Rs.35000/- with 12% interest from
filing of claim application till disbursement
as amount is in fixed deposit as per order
of this Court, be paid and disbursed to the
legal heirs of the deceased- employee
within 30 days.(Para 1 to 18)

B. The provisions of Section 4 (1) (C) of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
which reads as follows : -

(i) Where parmanent partial (i) in the
case of an injury disablement results from
specified in Part II of Schedule the injury
I, such percentage of the compensation
which would have been payable in the
case of permanent total disablement as is
specified therein as being the percentage
of the loss of earning capacity caused by
that injury, and

(ii) in the case of an injury not
pecified in Schedule I, such percentage of
the compensation payable in the case of
permanent total disablement as is propor-
tionate to the loss of earning capacity (as
assessed
by
the
qualified
medical
practitioner) permanently caused by the
inj- ury; Explanation I.-- Where more
injuries than one are caused by the same
accident, the amount of compensation
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
payable
under
this
head
shall
be
aggregated but not so in any case as to
exceed the amount which would have
been
payable
if
permanent
total
disablement
had
resulted
from
the
injuries; Explanation II.-- In assessing the
loss of earning capacity for the purposes
of sub- clause (ii), the qualified medical
practitioner shall have due regard to the
percentages of loss of earning capacity in
relation to different injuries specified in
Schedule I (Para 9)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. General Manager, M/S. Allahabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., District Allahabad
Vs. Suresh Chandra Mishra
135

48. Costs easy.

Court No. - 64

Case :- Cross Appeal/ Cross Objection
No. - 65668 of 2013

Appellant :- Satya Narain Keserwani
and another

Respondent :- National Insurance
Company Ltd. and others

Counsel for Appellant :- Mr. Ram
Singh, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Komal
Mehrotra and

Mr.
Vinay
Kumar
Chaturvedi,
Advocates

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Allowed in part.

2. For orders, see my order of date
passed in FAFO No.1394 of 2006.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 135
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 3250 of 2004

General Manager, M/S. Allahabad Dugdh
Utpadak
Sahkari Sangh
Ltd.,
District
Allahabad ...Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chandra Mishra ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ganesh Datt Mishra, Sri C.D. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shyam
Narain, Sri Sudhanshu Narain, Sri S.D. Ojha
A. Civil matter-Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923-Section 30- Commissioner has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,38,340/-
with
9%
rate
of
interest-Challenge
against- when the claimant was on job at
that point of time he fell down from the
staircase of the platform-The claimant /
respondent sustained multiple injures on
his left lower limb and on his spinal cord
was also damaged-disability due to the
accidental
fall
is
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
and
under
the
provisions of Section 4(1)(C) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 -
during the pendency of this litigation the
original claimant has passed away-The
amount
has
already
been
deposited
without interest -The claimants would be
at least entitled as per Section 4(2)(A) of
the Act where the employee has to be
granted actual medical expenses and pain
shock to the claimant-Hence, the amount
of Rs.35000/- with 12% interest from
filing of claim application till disbursement
as amount is in fixed deposit as per order
of this Court, be paid and disbursed to the
legal heirs of the deceased- employee
within 30 days.(Para 1 to 18)

B. The provisions of Section 4 (1) (C) of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
which reads as follows : -

(i) Where parmanent partial (i) in the
case of an injury disablement results from
specified in Part II of Schedule the injury
I, such percentage of the compensation
which would have been payable in the
case of permanent total disablement as is
specified therein as being the percentage
of the loss of earning capacity caused by
that injury, and

(ii) in the case of an injury not
pecified in Schedule I, such percentage of
the compensation payable in the case of
permanent total disablement as is propor-
tionate to the loss of earning capacity (as
assessed
by
the
qualified
medical
practitioner) permanently caused by the
inj- ury; Explanation I.-- Where more
injuries than one are caused by the same
accident, the amount of compensation
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
payable
under
this
head
shall
be
aggregated but not so in any case as to
exceed the amount which would have
been
payable
if
permanent
total
disablement
had
resulted
from
the
injuries; Explanation II.-- In assessing the
loss of earning capacity for the purposes
of sub- clause (ii), the qualified medical
practitioner shall have due regard to the
percentages of loss of earning capacity in
relation to different injuries specified in
Schedule I (Para 9)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. North East Karnataka Road Trans. Corp.Vs
Smt. Sujatha Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009

2. Golla Rajanna Etc. . Vs Div. Manager & anr.
(2017) 1 TAC 259 SC

3. Mayan Vs Mustafa & anr. (2022) ACJ 524

4. Sri Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda Vs Div.
Manager, New India Ins. Co. Ltd (2019)0
SSC1347 Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs
Prabhakar Maurti Garvali & anr. (2006) 0 SSC
1105

5. Mohd. Yaqub Vs UPSRTC thru Reg. Manager,
Moradabad (2003) 97 FLR 224

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

1. Heard Sri Ganesh Datt Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the claimant.

2. This First Appeal From Order has
been filed under section 30 of Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 ( hereinafter
referred to 'Act, 1923') by appellant- G.M.
Dugdh Sangh Allahabad, being aggrieved
by order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Allahabad
in WC Case No.46 of 2001 whereby the
learned
Commissioner
has
awarded
compensation of Rs.1,38,340/- with 9%
rate of interest.

3. The facts of the present case are
that it has been culled out from the record
that the claimants who was employed by
appellant met with an accident. On
19.8.199 when the claimant was on job at
that point of time he fell down from the
staircase of the platform. The claimant /
respondent sustained multiple injures on his
left lower limb and on his spinal cord was
also damaged. The respondent company
rushed the claimant to the hospital where
the claimant was admitted and continued to
be in hospital from 19.8.1999 to 24.8.1999.
For a period one month the claimants was
advised bed rest. The claimant was 38 years
of age and his wages were about Rs.2000/-
per month. The doctors opined that there
was 60% disability of body. The claimants
spent
about
Rs.15,000/-
for
medical
expenses and claimed Rs.1,15,000/- as loss
of wages. On notices being issued the
appellant / owner answered the claim
application contending that the employee
was injured not in the premises but at a tea
stall which is located near the factory and,
therefore, the claimant was not entitled for
any compensation. The claimant examined
himself as against this the appellant
examined
about
five
witnesses.
The
appellant
contended
before
the
commissioner that in the year 1997 the
claimant had sustained injures due to
vehicle accident, and the medical certificate
produced related to the injures of that time.
The claimant in his rejoinder refuted the
charge that he was not injured in the
premises of appellant. The commissioner
did not accept the contention that the
injures were caused beyond the factory
premises holding that the injury was caused
in the factory premises, and accepted the
7 All. General Manager, M/S. Allahabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., District Allahabad
Vs. Suresh Chandra Mishra
137
claim petition granting compensation by
holding against appellant, as the officer of
the factory took him to hospital. The
claimant was taken to one Preeti Nursing
Home,thereafter taken to Jeevan Jyoti
Hospital. The officers who came to depose
did not know at what time the accident
occurred but out of humanity took the
claimant to the hospital. This was the
testimony of one of the witness Parth Sarthi
for employer / appellant as per medical
certificate. The calculation was based on
the 60% disability with 9% rate of interest.
The Commissioner granted compensation
as per schedule.

4. While admitting this appeal and
issuing notice, the Court on 1.12.2004
passed the following order :-

"Admit.

Issue
notice
to
unserved
respondents only by R.P.A.D. Returnable at
an early date.

The substantial question of law,
apart from other legal grounds, arising in
the appeal is :

(i)
Whether
the
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner committed
apparent error of law in awarding the
compensation without there being any loss
of earning and without probing the actual
loss of earning capacity by the claimant /
opposite party as required within the
meaning of Section -4 (1) (c) (ii) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ?

Even though Court was of the
opinion that this matter be decided finally
on the issue raised by the appellant,
learned counsel for the claimant -
respondent prays for and is allowed four
weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed
within four weeks thereafter.

Stay application shall be listed
immediately after expiry of aforesaid
period.

Until
further
orders,
the
operation of the impugned judgment and
award
dated
28.9.2004
passed
by
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,
Allahabad/
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner, Allahabad in W.C. Case
No.46 of 2001 ( Suresh Chandra Mishra
Versus General Manager, M/s Allahabad
Dugh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited,
Allahabad ) shall remain stayed. The
amount deposited by the Employer, in
pursuance to the aforesaid judgment and
award dated 28.9.2004, shall not be
disbursed and shall be invested by the
concerned authority in a Fixed Deposit
Account - carrying maximum interest for
minimum period and both the Principal &
the interest of it may be reinvested on same
terms as above and it shall be subject to
any order passed subsequently by this
Court."

5. This Court framed only one
question of law based on facts and
legislation. The question of law, however,
as questions of law are formulated by the
appellant which are seven in number they
may not be decided, but the arguments are
advanced by Shri Ganesh Datt MishraAdvocate for appellant on all the questions.
The said questions are reproduced herein
below : -

"(i).
Whether
the
finding
recorded by the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner vitiated by not considering
the oral evidences of Devendra Swaroop
and U.N. Singh and documentary evidence
on record and also by not mentioning any
reason for disbelieving the oral evidence of
K.M. Pandey Production Manager, Jagpal
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh Factory Manager and Parth Sarathi
Computer Accountant ?

(ii)
Whether
the
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner committed
error of law in not considering the case of
defendant / appellant and oral and
documentary
evidences
that
medical
certificate is result of accident of the
claimant / opposite party in November,
1997 ?

(iii) Whether the injury was
caused
in
November,
1997
and
on
19.8.1999 by an accident which was not
arising out of in the course of his
employment ?

(iv) Whether the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner committed
apparent error of law in awarding the
compensation without there being any
loss of earning and without probing the
actual loss of earning capacity by the
claimant / opposite party as required
within the meaning of Section -4 (1) (c)
(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 ?

(v)
Whether
the
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner committed
apparent error of law and in not
considering the points and arguments
raised and rulling relied upon in the
written argument submitted before the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
and the impugned order / direction is based
on non application of mind ?

(vi)
Whether
the
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner committed
apparent error of law I not drawing
adverse inference against the workman /
opp. Party regarding accident in November,
1997 ?

(vii) Whether an oral evidence
adduced by the Workman / opp. Party to the
effect that he was injured in November,
1997 by buffalo, is without any pleading
there of and the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner committed error of law and
jurisdiction in relying upon the same ?

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that finding recorded by the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
that the claimant / opposite party was
injured on 29.8.1999 in the factory
premises and arising out of employment, is
perverse and based on non consideration of
the
oral
and
documentary
evidence
submitted by the owner/appellant. Learned
counsel for the appellant has further
submitted
that
the
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner committed an
error apparent on the face of record in not
assigning any reason for disbelieving the
testimony of K.M. Pandey Production
Manager, Jagpal Singh Factory Manager
and Parth Sarathi Computer Accountant
and also the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner failed to consider the oral
evidence of Devendra Swaroop then
General Manager and Mr. U.N. Singh
Manager ( Admin) and documentary
evidence Exh. E-1 to Exhibit E-19 on the
records.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that there is no loss of
earning. The claimant continued to be on
the said post and not considering this aspect
and this non consideration of the contention
of the appellant itself has made the order to
be vulnerable as perversity has crept in.

8. As against this, learned counsel for
respondent submits that the disability due
to the accidental fall is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and under the provisions
of Section 4(1)(C) of the Workmen's
Compensation
Act,
1923
it
is
an
employment injure which would entitle the
claimant to claim what is known as
compensation.
7 All. General Manager, M/S. Allahabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., District Allahabad
Vs. Suresh Chandra Mishra
139

9. The provisions of Section 4 (1) (C)
of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
which reads as follows : -

(c) Where parmanent partial (i) in
the case of an injury disablement results
from specified in Part II of Schedule the
injury
I,
such
percentage
of
the
compensation which would have been
payable in the case of permanent total
disablement as is specified therein as being
the percentage of the loss of earning
capacity caused by that injury, and

(ii) in the case of an injury not
pecified in Schedule I, such percentage of
the compensation payable in the case of
permanent total disablement as is propor-
tionate to the loss of earning capacity (as
assessed
by
the
qualified
medical
practitioner) permanently caused by the
inj- ury; Explanation I.-- Where more
injuries than one are caused by the same
accident, the amount of compensation
payable
under
this
head
shall
be
aggregated but not so in any case as to
exceed the amount which would have
been
payable
if
permanent
total
disablement
had
resulted
from
the
injuries; Explanation II.-- In assessing the
loss of earning capacity for the purposes
of sub- clause (ii), the qualified medical
practitioner shall have due regard to the
percentages of loss of earning capacity in
relation to different injuries specified in
Schedule I;

10. At the outset, it is relevant to
discuss the scope of this Court to entertain
appeal against the award of Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. The Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009
North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on
2.11.2018 has held as under :

"9. At the outset, we may take
note of the fact, being a settled principle,
that the question as to whether the
employee met with an accident, whether the
accident occurred during the course of
employment, whether it arose out of an
employment, how and in what manner the
accident occurred, who was negligent in
causing the accident, whether there existed
any relationship of employee and employer,
what was the age and monthly salary of the
employee, how many are the dependents of
the deceased employee due to injuries
suffered in an accident, whether there was
any insurance coverage obtained by the
employer to cover the incident etc. are
some of the material issues which arise for
the just decision of the Commissioner in a
claim petition when an employee suffers
any bodily injury or dies during the course
of his employment and he/his LRS sue/s his
employer to claim compensation under the
Act.

10. The aforementioned questions
are essentially the questions of fact and,
therefore, they are required to be proved
with the aid of evidence. Once, they are
proved either way, the findings recorded
thereon are regarded as findings of fact."

11. The Apex Court further went on to
hold as under :

"15. Such appeal is then heard on
the question of admission with a view to
find out as to whether it involves any
substantial question of law or not. Whether
the appeal involves a substantial question
of law or not depends upon the facts of
each case and needs an examination by the
High Court. If the substantial question of
law arises, the High Court would admit the
appeal for final hearing on merit else
would dismiss in limini with reasons that it
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
does not involve any substantial question/s
of law.

16. Now coming to the facts of
this case, we find that the appeal before the
High Court did not involve any substantial
question of law on the material questions
set out above. In other words, in our view,
the Commissioner decided all the material
questions arising in the case properly on
the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties
and
rightly
determined
the
compensation payable to the respondent. It
was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High
Court on facts.

17. In this view of the matter, the
findings being concurrent findings of fact of
the two courts below are binding on this
Court. Even otherwise, we find no good
ground to call for any interference on any
of the factual findings. None of the factual
findings are found to be either perverse or
arbitrary or based on no evidence or
against
any
provision
of
law.
We
accordingly uphold these findings."

12. As far as the finding regarding
where the injury occurred, and whether it
occurred or not, cannot be gone into as
those are finding of fact. Hence, the said
ground fails and is answered against the
appellant. As far as the question regarding
disability is concerned, this is a question of
fact and in view of the decisions of the
Apex Court, this Court cannot go into the
said issue, unless it is proved that the
finding of the learned Commissioner is
absolutely perverse. In this case, the Court
below has considered medical evidence
which shows there was disability caused.
Thus, grant of compensation of Rs.
1,38,340/- as per the quotient cannot be
said to be bad. Rather the rate of interest
awarded by the Commissioner is below
statutory rate of interest.

13. In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs.
Divisional Manager and Another, 2017
(1) TAC 259 (SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa
and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also, the Apex
Court has held that under Section 30 of
Workmen Compensation Act, the High
Court cannot enter into the arena of facts
unless they are proved to be perverse and
the Court cannot interfere unless there is a
question of law involved. The decision in
Salim vs. New India Assurance. Co. Ltd.
and another, 2022 ACJ 526 also will not
permit this Court to interfere with the well
reasoned
judgment
of
learned
Commissioner.

14. All other grounds mentioned in
the memo of appeal are in the realm of
question of facts and the finding of the
Commissioner
on
these
cannot
be
interfered as this Court has admitted appeal
on only the question of law, hence, finding
are not disturbed by this Court as this Court
is fortified in its view by the decision of the
Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal
No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt.
Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018, Golla
Rajanna
Etc.
Etc.
Vs.
Divisional
Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259
(SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another,
2022 ACJ 524 wherein the Apex Court has
held that under Section 30 of Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923 the High Court
cannot enter into the arena of findings of
fact unless they are proved to be perverse
and unless there is a question of law
involved.

14. All other grounds mentioned in
the memo of appeal are in the realm of
questions of fact and the finding of the
Commissioner
on
these
cannot
be
interfered as this Court has admitted appeal
on only the question of law, hence, findings
7 All. General Manager, M/S. Allahabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., District Allahabad
Vs. Suresh Chandra Mishra
141
are not disturbed by this Court as this Court
is fortified in its view by the decision of the
Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal
No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt.
Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018, Golla
Rajanna
Etc.
Etc.
Vs.
Divisional
Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259
(SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another,
2022 ACJ 524 wherein the Apex Court has
held that under Section 30 of Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923 the High Court
cannot enter into the arena of finding of
facts unless they are proved to be perverse
and unless there is a question of law
involved.

15. In this there is a perversity
which has crept in the order of the
Commissioner as the argument of the
appellant that the claimant has not
proved loss of income and that he
continues to be in job and that he was
been working in the diary and his salary
has increased on 16.4.2000, therefore
there is no loss of income. The
Commissioner could not have taken
recourse to only one fact that the
accident occurred in the premises The
next limb of entitlement has not been
considered at all except the fact that he
was admitted in the hospital.

16. The appeal will have to be
allowed. The judgments cited by the
counsel
for
the
appellant
in
Sri
Chanappa
Nagappa
Muchalagoda
Versus Divisional Manager, New India
Insurance Company Limited, 2019(0)
Supreme( SC) 1347 and Shakuntala
Chandrakant
Shreshti
Versus
Prabhakar Maurti Garvali and another,
2006 (0) Supreme(SC) 1105 will enure
for the benefit of the appellant and the
judgment of this High Court in Mohd.
Yaqub Vs. UPSRTC through Regional
Manager, Moradabad, 2003 (97) FLR
224

17. While entertaining this appeal
and
during
the
pendency
of
this
litigation the original claimant has
passed away. The amount has already
been deposited without interest .The
claimants would be at least entitled as
per Section 4(2)(A) of the Act where the
employee has to be granted actual
medical expenses and pain shock to the
claimant.
Hence,
the
amount
of
Rs.35000/- with 12% interest from filing
of claim application till disbursement as
amount is in fixed deposit as per order of
this Court, be paid and disbursed to the
legal heirs of the deceased- employee.
The submission that because of this
injures the claimant was not granted
promotion is not answered by the
counsel for the appellant and now that
the original claimant has passed away it
would not be fruitful to remand the
matter to the tribunal for considering
this aspect and therefore while returning
the amount kept in fixed deposit,
Rs.35000/ with 12% interest will have to
be granted as per the statute and that the
respondent will be entitled to costs of
Rs.10,000/-.

18. The appeal is partly allowed.
Interim relief, if any, is modified as
above. The Registry will forward this
order to the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner who shall immediately
summon the claimants and disburse the
amount kept in fixed deposit with
interest accrued on the said amount till
date within 30 days calculating the same
from the date of receipt of this order.

19. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels for ably assisting this Court.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 142
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 4050 of 2017

Babunandan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Baggal Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sunil Kumar, Sri Daya Shankar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Sri Rradeep
Kumar Sinha

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of
compensation-Fatal
accident-deceased
aged about 18 years, only Rs. 26,500/-
awarded by the Tribunal-Appellate Court
took a minimum wage of Rs. 35,000/-
per annum and added 50% for future
prospects-after
deduction
of
50%
towards personal expenses and applying
multiplier of 18, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 4,72,500/-and
Rs. 70,000/- added towards various
conventional
damages-Entitlement
to
compensation of Rs. 5,42.000/- made
out- Interest of 7% and the manner of
payment decided by the learned tribunal is
just and lawful and does not call for
interference. (Para 1 to 33)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarla Verma(Smt.) & ors. Vs DTC (2009) 6
SCC 121

2. Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130
3. National Ins. Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680

4. New India Assur. Co. Ltd Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 822

5. Sushil Kumar & ors. Vs M/s. Sampark Lojastic
Pvt. Ltd & ors. (2017) 35 LCD 1311

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

I. INTRODUCTION:

1. The instant appeal arises out of an
award made by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Azamgarh1 in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 04 of 2002, Buabunandan and
anr. V Baggal yadav & Ors. dated
01.02.2007 by partly allowing the claim of
the claimants.

M.A. Claim Petition No. 04/2002,
Babunandan & anr. V Baggal Yadav & Ors.

II. Case of the claimants and
respondents before the learned tribunal:

2. Briefly the case of the claimants
before the learned tribunal was that the
deceased died of injuries sustained in an
accident which occurred on 02.01.1998,
and was caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of truck bearing
Registration
No. UP 52A/2047. The
offending
vehicle
was
insured
by
respondent no. 3-Insurance Company. On
the fateful day, the deceased was returning
his house from the school when he met
with the accident. The claimants are the
parents of the deceased Shyam Narayan.
The deceased was 18 years of age at the
time of his death.

III. Compensation awarded by the
learned tribunal: