# Mohd. Zahir v. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko 1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issue for Consideration

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-20
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2491 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-zahir-v-chairman-u-p-s-r-t-c-lko-1374-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-54039
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,969 of 43,674. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39969 for what follows._

1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1373

.....

(viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a
post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which
can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be
entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of
time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the
minority of a member of the family."

11. Similarly, in Steel Authority of India Limited v. Gouri Devi by judgment dated 18.11.2021
passed in Civil Appeal No.6910/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay in pursuing claim and
approaching the court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of
providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. In the case of State of J & K and
others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, the Supreme Court has held that: -

"11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the
case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger
issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment
in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to
apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the 5 Constitution. On the basis of
competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed
except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the
family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family
survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment
and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution."

12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the legal principles applying to the facts of the present case,
this Court is of the firm view that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate
and unexplained delay and laches without going into the merits of the case.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1373
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2491 of 2019

Mohd. Zahir ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko ...Respondent
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the scooter driver to the extent of
40% was sustainable;
(ii) Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, particularly with respect to functional
disability, future prospects and non-pecuniary heads.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Burden of proof
- Standard of proof:

Held: The claimant is required to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities
and not beyond reasonable doubt - The testimony of injured witness coupled with police papers including
charge-sheet is sufficient to establish negligence - In absence of examination of driver of offending vehicle,
adverse inference arises - The finding of the Tribunal attributing 40% contributory negligence to the scooter
driver was perverse and liable to be set aside - The accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver
of the offending bus. [Paras 27-33]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Permanent disability - Functional disability -
Assessment:

Held: The Tribunal is not bound by the percentage of permanent disability mentioned in the disability
certificate and must assess functional disability with reference to nature of work of the claimant - Where the
claimant, a salesman, suffered amputation of right leg below knee and was rendered incapable of performing
duties involving standing and movement, the functional disability is to be treated as 100% - The Tribunal
erred in treating disability as 50% for computing compensation. [Paras 35, 41, 45]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Permanent disability -
Applicability of Rule 220-A, U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,1998:

Held: In cases of permanent disability, compensation towards future prospects is admissible - Where the
claimant was below 40 years of age at the time of accident, addition of 50% towards future prospects is
warranted - The Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under this head. [Paras 43-44]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Interest and non-pecuniary heads - Enhancement:

Held: The claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum in terms of Rule 220-A of the Rules,
1998 - The compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads was inadequate and required enhancement
- The total compensation was accordingly re-determined. [Paras 46-48]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal - Enhancement of compensation - Liability:
Held: The appeal filed by UPSRTC challenging negligence and liability was liable to be dismissed - The
appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement deserved to be allowed and the award modified accordingly -
The enhanced compensation along with interest was directed to be paid by UPSRTC with adjustment of
amount already paid. [Paras 49-52]

Appeal by UPSRTC dismissed; appeal by claimant allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, (2025) 2 SCC 599 - relied on;
Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 - relied on; Khenyei v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273 - relied on; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 -
relied on;
Sarnam Singh v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 193 - relied on; Pappu Deo
Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 - relied on; Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1375
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439 - relied on; FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar &
Another vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998.

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Negligence; Contributory negligence; Functional disability; Permanent disability; Future
prospects; Compensation enhancement; Interest; Sole negligence.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Court No.7, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2004.

Appearance for Parties
For Appellant: Smt. Anju Shukla, Sri Nigamendra Shukla
For Respondent: Sri S.K. Misra.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. FAFO. No. 1698 of 2008 has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 by the owner-UPSRTC of the offending Bus No.UP-21L-0405 against the impugned
judgment and award dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.7, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2004 (Mohd.
Zaheer vs. UPSRTC), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a road accident that
occurred on 18.12.2003, a compensation of Rs. 1,98,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the ownerUPSRTC of the offending Bus No.UP-21L-0405.

2. FAFO No. 2491 of 2019 has also been preferred by the claimant under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, against the impugned judgment and
award dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Court No.7, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2004 (Mohd. Zaheer vs.
UPSRTC), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a road accident that occurred on
18.12.2003, a compensation of Rs. 1,98,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has
been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the owner-UPSRTC of
the offending Bus No.UP-21L-0405.

3. Since, both the appeals arise from the same impugned judgment and award, as such, they
are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-UPSRTC submitted that the claimant alleged that on the
date of the accident, he was travelling as a pillion rider on Scooter No.DL-1-SB-0460, which
collided head-on with the offending bus No.UP-21-L-0405, which was wholly improbable.

5. It was submitted that the factum of the accident was wholly doubtful and even if it is
assumed that the accident was indeed caused, even then, from the evidence on record, it was proved
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that it occurred due to the sole negligence of the scooter driver, who was not made party in the
claim petition. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that there was
only 40% contributory negligence of the scooter driver, whereas, as per the evidence on record, it
was 100%.

6. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the claim petition be
dismissed.

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that from the evidence on
record, it was proved that the accident occurred head-on, when claimant was travelling as a pillion
rider on the above scooter and at the time of the accident, the offending bus was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner.

8. It was further submitted that due to the injuries suffered by the claimant, his right leg below
knee was amputated due to which, he has suffered 100% functional disability, because he was
unable to work as a salesman in a Saree Shop.

9. It was submitted that prior to the accident, the claimant was working as a salesman in a
Saree Shop, but after the accident due to the permanent disability suffered by him, he was unable to
do that work, which was also proved from the evidence of his employer PW-2 Sanjay, but still the
Tribunal has assessed compensation on the basis that the claimant only suffered 50% functional
disability, as was mentioned in the permanent disability certificate, which was erroneous.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal was not bound by the percentage of
permanent disability mentioned in the disability certificate and should have assessed independently
the quantum of functional disability, but it has failed to do so.

11. It was further submitted that the claimant was entitled to compensation towards loss of
future prospects due to permanent disability at the rate of 50%, in accordance with Rule 220-A of
the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998; however, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under this head.

12. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under the
non-pecuniary heads and has granted interest on the compensation at the rate of 6% per annum,
whereas, under the aforesaid Rules, the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per
annum.

13. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company
be dismissed, and the appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, be
allowed.

14. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the record of the lower
court.
1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1377

15. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW-1, Sanjay as PW-2, Dr. Rajeev
Singh as PW-3, Mohd. Usman as PW-4, Dr. Ravindra Singh as PW-5 and Dr. Praveen Jain as PW6, whereas, no oral evidence was adduced by the UPSRTC.

16. The claimant, Mohd. Zaheer PW-1 deposed that on the day of accident, he was travelling
with Yaseen as a pillion rider on scooter from Meerut-Mawana road, then in Chhota Mawana in
front of dairy, near a transformer, a roadways bus no.UP-21-L-0405, which was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from the opposite side, and the bus hit his scooter by
coming to the wrong side of the road due to which he fell down and suffered grievous injuries, the
accident occurred at 3:30 PM. In this accident, his right leg was badly crushed, he got 31 stitches in
his body, he was admitted to Divya Jyoti Hospital. He remained admitted for about 15 days in that
hospital. He further deposed that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, his right leg was
crushed and was amputated below knee.

17. He further deposed that at the time of the accident, the scooter was being driven by Yaseen
in a controlled speed towards the left side of the road. He further deposed that prior to the accident,
he was working in Bhavik Sari Centre, Mawana and was getting a salary of Rs.3,600/- per month,
but due to the permanent disability suffered in the accident, he has been fired from the job and is
not able to work anymore. His family was dependent on his income. He has now got no source of
income. He further deposed that he has filed his permanent disability certificate, which was
obtained from Pyare Lal Sharma Hospital, Meerut. In cross-examination, the claimant deposed that
the offending bus came from the front, from the side of Bada Mawana. He was going from Chhota
Mawana to Bada Mawana, and after the accident, he became unconscious. He was admitted to
Divya Jyoti Nursing Home, Ganganagar, Meerut by the passer-by and he regained consciousness
after five days.

18. During cross-examination, he deposed that he can not stand for a long duration and
requested the court to permit him to sit down on a chair, and his cross examination was conducted
seated on a chair. He further deposed that he has been fired from his job after the accident. He
further deposed that as a salesman, he used to sell sarees, ladies suit salwar, pant shirt pieces and
his job was to carry the above items, fold them, keep them in the proper place in the shop and also
he used to display the above clothes to the proposed buyers, who came to the shop.

19. The employer of the claimant Sanjay was examined as PW-2, who deposed that he owns a
shop in the name and style of M/s Bhavik Saree Centre in Mawana, in which the claimant used to
work, who was being paid a salary of Rs.3,600/- per month in cash. This witness has proved the
salary certificate of the claimant. He further deposed that in the accident, the right leg of the
claimant has been amputated below knee, due to which, he is not able to do any job now and for
this reason, he has been fired from the job and he has employed another person in claimant?s place.
In cross-examination, this witness deposed that he has employed a person, namely Aslam in place
of the claimant, who was being paid the same salary as was being paid to the claimant. He admitted
that he has got no documentary proof of payment of salary to the claimant, but disclosed that he
was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month from his shop. He denied the suggestion that the claimant
was not employed at his shop, who was not being paid salary of Rs.3,600/- per month.
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. Dr. Rajeev Singh PW-3 deposed that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the
accident on 18.12.2003, his liver was lacerated and right leg was crushed, which was operated by
him and the leg was amputated below knee and the claimant remained admitted in his hospital from
18.12.2003 to 02.01.2004. In cross-examination, he deposed that the claimant?s leg was amputated
in his nursing home.

21. Mohd. Usman PW-4 deposed that on 18.12.2003 at about 3:30 p.m., on the
Meerut?Mawana Road, the claimant was travelling on a scooter belonging to his brother Yaseen,
then a roadways bus bearing No. UP-21-L-0405, which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, came to the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with the scooter, as a result of
which the persons travelling on the scooter sustained serious injuries. He further deposed that he
and other persons present on the spot, took the injured in a DCM vehicle for treatment to Divya
Jyoti Nursing Home, Ganganagar, Meerut, where the claimant was admitted. The driver of the
offending bus was apprehended and shortly afterwards, the police also arrived to whom the driver
of the offending bus was handed. He further deposed that he got the FIR registered at Police Station
Mawana at 5:30 PM, in which the police had inquired from him and the site plan was also prepared
at this instance. In the cross examination, this witness deposed that he saw the accident from a
distance of about one hundred meter and the scooter was being driven by his brother Mohd.
Yaseen. He admitted that he himself did not give any information to the police but some passer-by
had informed the police. He also deposed that after the accident, a crowd had gathered on the road,
and the traffic was jammed. He further deposed that the driver side of the bus collided with the
scooter and with the help of the police, the claimant was admitted to the hospital. He further
admitted that he had gone to his house for informing the family members regarding the accident,
but he denied the suggestion that he did not saw the accident and was not present at the site of the
accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent
driving of the scooter driver.

22. PW-5 Dr. Ravindra Singh, Senior Orthopaedic Specialist, District Hospital, Meerut was
examined as PW-5, who has proved the disability certificate, issued to the claimant which disclosed
that he has suffered permanent disability of 50% due to the amputation of right leg below the knee.
He further deposed that due to the disability, the claimant must be having difficulty in doing his
daily routine work, and he was further disabled from doing any work, which he was doing prior to
the accident. In the cross examination, this witness failed to disclose the functional disability
suffered by the claimant due to the permanent disability. He also deposed that the abdomen of the
claimant was also operated.

23. It is apparent that the Insurance Company has not cross-examined this witness (PW-5) as
to whether the claimant could still work as a salesman at a Saree Shop even after the permanent
disability suffered by him in the accident.

24. The claimant also examined Dr. Praveen Jain as PW-6, who deposed that he was a plastic
surgeon, who had treated the claimant on 18.12.2003 in Divya Jyoti Speciality Hospital,
Ganganagar, Meerut, who had examined the injured right leg of the claimant, which was found
badly crushed below knee, in which both the bones were found fractured and there was also
compound dislocation of the ankle joint and all muscles were also crushed. He further deposed that
1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1379
there was no sensation, movement or blood flow in the right leg of the claimant and hence had
advised the amputation of right leg below knee. He further deposed that on 18.12. 2003, he along
with Dr. Manoj Gupta and Dr. Rajeev Singh had amputated the right leg of the claimant below
knee. Dr. Rajeev Singh had operated the abdomen of the claimant, while Dr. A Mukherji was
present as anesthetist.

25. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Rajani Sahoo and Others (2025) 2 SCC 599, has held as under:-

"8. As regards the reliability of charge-sheet and other documents collected by the police
during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. [(2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819 : 2018 INSC 311] ,
held in para 27, thus : (SCC p. 672)

"27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal
filed by Respondents 2 and 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of
negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of
the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and
negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the
accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet
filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes
[Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014)
1 SCC (Cri) 13] , noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle
as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of
charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the
vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the tribunal."

9. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence
including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with
the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report,
the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The
High Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the
Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal.

10. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Mathew
Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi [(2023) 13 SCC 510 : 2023 INSC 621] , this Court held thus : (SCC p.
514, para 12)

"12. .. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal
and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be
established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of
1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a
road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [(2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ."

11. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding
negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be
considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available
before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such
documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.

12. It is also a fact that the appellant had attributed that the respondent claimants
connived with police and fraudulently prepared the charge-sheet. The contention is that the vehicle
insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident and the accident had occurred solely
due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased. But the evidence on record would
reveal that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was taken for rash and negligent
driving which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo."

(emphasis supplied)

26. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another
2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, has held as under:-

"4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been
held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven
by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the
death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."

(emphasis supplied)

27. It is apparent from the evidence of claimant PW-1, who is an injured witness, that he was
travelling as a pillion rider on scooter no.DL-1-SB-0460 at the time of the accident, then the
offending bus came from the opposite side and collided head-on with the scooter, which was not
contradicted by the UPSRTC by examining the driver of the offending bus before the Tribunal.

28. It is well settled that in order to contradict the finding of negligence, the offending driver
must have been examined by the appellant-UPSRTC before the Tribunal, but no such endeavour
was made by it.

on the ground that after the accident he went to his house for informing the family members
regarding the accident which was unusual, as such, he cannot be an eyewitness of the accident,
which is a perverse finding.
1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1381

30. It is well settled that the claimants are not supposed to prove the accident and the
negligence of the offending bus driver beyond reasonable doubt and only they have to prove it on
the preponderance of probabilities, which they have proved.

31. It was further proved from the evidence of the claimant, who was an injured witness and
eyewitness PW-4, that at the time of the accident, the scooter was being driven towards the left side
of the road, which was hit head-on by the offending bus, as such, there was no occasion for the
Tribunal to assume that the scooter driver contributed 40% to the accident.

32. Merely on the basis that right palm of scooter driver and right leg of the claimant came in
contact with the body of the bus, it cannot be presumed that if the scooter driver was cautious, then
the accident could have been averted. It is apparent that since right leg of the claimant was injured,
the tribunal has presumed composite negligence of scooter driver in the accident, which is a
perverse finding. It is further apparent that since scooter driver was not party to the claim petition,
this finding of composite negligence, could not have been recorded by the tribunal and keeping in
view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and
others (2015) 9 SCC 273, the claimant was entitled to claim compensation from any tortfeasor i.e.
either from scooty driver or from the bus driver/owner but the claimant has chosen to claim
compensation from the owner of bus, UPSRTC.

33. The above finding of the Tribunal insofar as the contributory negligence of the driver of
the scooter is concerned, is liable to be set-aside and is accordingly set-aside and it is held, that the
accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending bus no.UP-21-L-0405,
which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident.

34. It is further apparent that in the criminal case after investigation, a charge-sheet has been
submitted against the offending bus driver Mohd. Aslam, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC,
on which cognizance has been taken by the competent criminal court, who has not been examined
by the UPSRTC, to prove that he was driving his bus cautiously with controlled speed at the time
of the accident and there was no negligence on his part in the accident.

35. From the evidence of PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6, it was proved that due to the injuries
suffered by the claimant in the accident, his right leg was badly crushed, which was amputated
below knee, due to which he has suffered 50% permanent disability, which was proved by
examining PW-5, Dr. Ravindra Singh.

36. The Apex court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC
343, while analysing how to determine compensation in cases of permanent disability, has held 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, the
1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability
on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of
earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We
may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal
may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the
decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC
254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )

37. The Apex Court in the case of Sarnam Singh vs. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 193, while analysing when partial disability will amount to 100% earning
capacity loss, held as under:-

10. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his
functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can
be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar [Mohan Soni v. Ram
Avtar Tomar, (2012) 2 SCC 267 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 747 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 641] . In the
aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was
amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation
taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting.
The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This
Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was
55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being
performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons
may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the
road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some
kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of
earning capacity from 50% to 90%.

11. Applying the same principle to the case in hand, we find that the appellant herein was
working as a gunman with Bharat Hotel Limited. On account of amputation of his right leg above
the knee, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 31-5-2015. It is not a matter of dispute that a
person with his right leg amputated cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional
1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1383
disability. He was 50 years & 5 months old at the time of accident. Considering the aforesaid facts,
in our view, the Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at
100% and assessing the compensation accordingly. The High Court was in error in reducing the
loss of earning capacity to 80%, relying upon the judgment [Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sarnam Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 13011] of the High Court, despite there being a judgment
of this Court available on the issue.

38. The Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790
(By Three Judges) while considering the issue of awarding compensation for loss of future
prospects in cases of permanent disablement from motor accident, held as under:-

7. Two questions arise for consideration : one, whether in cases of permanent
disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from
compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of
disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that
Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] involved assessment of compensation in a case where the
victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-Judge Bench decision in Jagdish
[Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] was not
binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant [Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 :
(2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] to the extent that it did not award compensation
for future prospects, was binding. This Court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the
High Court to have read the previous rulings of this Court, to exclude the possibility of
compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in
permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] is illogical,
because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases ? and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.

39. The Apex Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Another (2023) 3 SCC 439, while directing that in cases of serious permanent
disability, compensation for future prospects should also be awarded, held as under:-

31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement
incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future
loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different
tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is
not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification
to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious
injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies
altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases-and
admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
1384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

40. A Division Bench of this Court in FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar & Another vs.
M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017 has held that even if the
accident occurred prior to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to compensation on future
prospects as per amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial
legislation.

41. It is well settled that in a case of permanent disability, the Tribunal is not bound by the
quantum of permanent disability mentioned in the disability certificate and it has to independently
assess the functional disability, keeping in view, the nature of the job, which was being performed
by the claimant before the accident. In each case, the Tribunal has to assess whether after the
accident, the claimant is in a position to do the same work, which he was doing prior to the
accident.

42. From the evidence of Sanjay PW-2, it was proved that the claimant was working as a
salesman in a garment shop, in which, Sarees, Suit Salwar, Pant-Shirt was sold and he was paid a
salary of Rs.3,600/- per month. Although, the Tribunal has disbelieved the salary certificate issued
by the PW-2 and has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3000/-, which is perfectly
justified, since PW-2 failed to submit any documentary proof of his income from the shop.

43. As per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, even in cases of permanent
disability, the claimant is entitled to get compensation for loss of future income due to the
permanent disability at the rate of 50%, if he was below 40 years old at the time of the accident.

44. It is apparent that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future
prospects, due to the disability to the claimant, whereas since he was only 36 year old at the time of
the accident, he was entitled to get it at the rate of 50%, in accordance with Rule 220-A of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.

45. From the evidence of PW-2 it was proved that the claimant was employed as a salesman in
his garment shop, who was fired from his job after accident due to the permanent disability suffered
by him. It is apparent that, owing to the amputation of his right leg below the knee, the claimant
became incapable of sitting cross-legged, standing up frequently, or standing for long durations,
which rendered him unfit to perform the duties of a salesman after the accident, and for this reason,
he was fired from his job. In view of this, it will be deemed that the claimant has suffered 100%
functional disability due to injuries suffered in the accident.

46. As per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimant was entitled to
interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the compensation awarded; however, the Tribunal has
awarded it @ 6% per annum, which requires enhancement.

47. It is also apparent that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation under
non-pecuniary heads, which requires substantial enhancement, keeping in view, the various
precedents of the Apex Court.
1 All. Mohd. Zahir Vs. Chairman U.P.S.R.T.C. Lko
1385

48.