# Nitin Kumar Tiwari v. Sunder Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1298 of 2010
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitin-kumar-tiwari-v-sunder-lal-ors-52776
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Arun Kumar Shukla, Harinank Mauli Vikram
Dwivedi, Harish Chandra Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal had correctly and lawfully
assessed the quantum of compensation payable
to the claimant, or whether the award suffered
from
inadequacy
due
to
erroneous
determination of the claimant's monthly income,
incorrect appreciation of the nature and extent
of permanent disability, improper assessment of
functional disability vis-à-vis loss of earning
capacity, wrongful deduction towards personal
expenses, and failure to award compensation
under
appropriate
heads
such as
future
prospects,
attendant
charges,
pain
and
suffering, and loss of amenities, thereby
warranting enhancement of compensation in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction u/s 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
facts of the case are that on 27.10.2006
the
claimant,
Nitin
Kumar
Tiwari,
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sustained grievous injuries in a road
accident involving offending vehicle, as a
result of which he suffered serious head
and bodily injuries leading to left-sided
hemiparesis and permanent disability -
Consequently, he filed MACP No. 4 of 2007
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kaushambi, claiming compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting
that he was about 26 years of age, selfemployed,
earning
his
livelihood
by
imparting tuition and engaging in farming,
and had become completely incapacitated
and dependent on attendants due to the
accident - The Tribunal, by award dated
22.01.2010, assessed his monthly income
on a notional basis, treated his permanent
disability at 70%, applied the multiplier
method,
and
awarded
a
total
compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
fastening liability upon the insurer of
offending vehicle - Aggrieved by the
inadequacy of compensation so awarded,
the claimant preferred the instant appeal
u/s 173 of Act seeking enhancement,
while
the
factum
of
accident
and
negligence remained undisputed as no
cross-appeal was filed by the owner,
driver, or insurer.

Held: It is true that in the instant case, as
per the disability certificate of the claimant,
he is only 70% permanently disabled, but it
is apparent that he is not in a position to do
any work and has become 100% functionally
disabled, as such, the compensation is to be
determined by assessing his earning capacity
loss as 100% - Considering the nature of
disability, loss of income is, thus held to be
100% and not 70% as held by the Tribunal -
The claimant claimed that he was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, but no documentary
proof
of
occupation
and
income
was
furnished
by
the
claimant
before
the
Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal has assessed
his income at only Rs. 2,500/- per month,
which is inadequate, keeping in view that
even the minimum wages of skilled workman
at the time of the accident in the State of UP
was about Rs.4,500/- per month, as such,
his income is assessed at Rs.4,500/- per
month at the time of the accident - In this
way, the claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.26,96,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till it's actual
payment, which is to be indemnified by the
insurer of the offending vehicle - Thus,
appeal allowed, award of the tribunal
modified. [Paras 18, 20, 25, 26] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another,
(2011) 1 SCC 343; Sarnam Singh v. Sriram
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 8
SCC 193; Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh
Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790 (By Three
Judges); Sidram v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another
(2023) 3 SCC 439; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable
v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through
LRS. and others, (2023) 13 SCC 334; Kajal
v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413;
Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7
SCC 738; Bab

## Text

11 All. Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sunder Lal & Ors.
279
circumstances, and not merely from the
consequences that ensue."

18. In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Versus Kashiram & Ors., 2009
(4) SCC 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that it is sufficient to justify a
conviction under Section 307 IPC :-

"If there is present an intent
coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury
capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its
result, if any. The Court has to see whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the Section.
Therefore, an accused charged under
Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted
merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."

19. Therefore, in view of the above case
laws, the arguments of the learned counsel
for the Revisionists that there was no firearm
injury caused to any one and the offence
under Section 307 IPC is not made out, is
baseless. There are several facts and
evidences are available on record and
truthfulness of the allegations on the basis of
evidence can only be ascertain by the trial of
the case. The learned Trial Court by referring
several case laws has rightly rejected the
discharge
application
of
the
accused
Revisionists by passing the impugned order.

20. Thus in view of the above
discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity
or jurisdictional error committed by the
Court below in passing the impugned order
and the Revisionists are not able to make
out a fit case, so as to justify interference
by this Court by granting any relief under
the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No
interference is warranted.

21. Revision lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 279
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1298 of 2010

Nitin Kumar Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
Sunder Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amit Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Arun Kumar Shukla, Harinank Mauli Vikram
Dwivedi, Harish Chandra Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal had correctly and lawfully
assessed the quantum of compensation payable
to the claimant, or whether the award suffered
from
inadequacy
due
to
erroneous
determination of the claimant's monthly income,
incorrect appreciation of the nature and extent
of permanent disability, improper assessment of
functional disability vis-à-vis loss of earning
capacity, wrongful deduction towards personal
expenses, and failure to award compensation
under
appropriate
heads
such as
future
prospects,
attendant
charges,
pain
and
suffering, and loss of amenities, thereby
warranting enhancement of compensation in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction u/s 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
facts of the case are that on 27.10.2006
the
claimant,
Nitin
Kumar
Tiwari,
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sustained grievous injuries in a road
accident involving offending vehicle, as a
result of which he suffered serious head
and bodily injuries leading to left-sided
hemiparesis and permanent disability -
Consequently, he filed MACP No. 4 of 2007
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kaushambi, claiming compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting
that he was about 26 years of age, selfemployed,
earning
his
livelihood
by
imparting tuition and engaging in farming,
and had become completely incapacitated
and dependent on attendants due to the
accident - The Tribunal, by award dated
22.01.2010, assessed his monthly income
on a notional basis, treated his permanent
disability at 70%, applied the multiplier
method,
and
awarded
a
total
compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
fastening liability upon the insurer of
offending vehicle - Aggrieved by the
inadequacy of compensation so awarded,
the claimant preferred the instant appeal
u/s 173 of Act seeking enhancement,
while
the
factum
of
accident
and
negligence remained undisputed as no
cross-appeal was filed by the owner,
driver, or insurer.

Held: It is true that in the instant case, as
per the disability certificate of the claimant,
he is only 70% permanently disabled, but it
is apparent that he is not in a position to do
any work and has become 100% functionally
disabled, as such, the compensation is to be
determined by assessing his earning capacity
loss as 100% - Considering the nature of
disability, loss of income is, thus held to be
100% and not 70% as held by the Tribunal -
The claimant claimed that he was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, but no documentary
proof
of
occupation
and
income
was
furnished
by
the
claimant
before
the
Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal has assessed
his income at only Rs. 2,500/- per month,
which is inadequate, keeping in view that
even the minimum wages of skilled workman
at the time of the accident in the State of UP
was about Rs.4,500/- per month, as such,
his income is assessed at Rs.4,500/- per
month at the time of the accident - In this
way, the claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.26,96,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till it's actual
payment, which is to be indemnified by the
insurer of the offending vehicle - Thus,
appeal allowed, award of the tribunal
modified. [Paras 18, 20, 25, 26] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another,
(2011) 1 SCC 343; Sarnam Singh v. Sriram
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 8
SCC 193; Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh
Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790 (By Three
Judges); Sidram v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another
(2023) 3 SCC 439; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable
v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through
LRS. and others, (2023) 13 SCC 334; Kajal
v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413;
Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7
SCC 738; Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3692; Sushil Kumar & Another v. M/S
Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, FAFO
No.2581
of
2011,

decided
on
26.04.2017 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
Enhancement of compensation; Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal; Claimant; Offending vehicle;
Negligence;
Injuries
sustained;
Permanent
disability; Functional disability; Loss of earning
capacity; Monthly income; Multiplier; Deduction
towards personal expenses; Future prospects;
Treatment expenses; Attendant charges; Pain
and suffering; Loss of amenities; Interest;
Indemnified by the insurer; Assessment of
compensation;
Redetermination
of
compensation; Modified award; Deposit of
enhanced amount; Adjustment of amount
already paid; Fixed deposit; Withdrawal from
fixed deposit.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 1298 of 2010
11 All. Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sunder Lal & Ors.
281
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
22.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / District Judge, Kaushambi, in MACP
No. 4 of 2007

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellants:
Amit Kumar Sinha

Advs. for the Respondent:
 Arun Kumar Shukla, Harinank Mauli Vikram Dwivedi,
Harish Chandra Mishra

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

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for
enhancement of compensation has been
preferred by the claimant against the
impugned judgment and award dated
22.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal/District
Judge,
Kaushambi, in MACP No. 4 of 2007 (Nitin
Kumar Tiwari vs. Sunderlal and another),
whereby, for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in a road accident, which occurred
on 27.10.2006, a compensation of Rs.
3,50,000/- 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 insurer of the offending
Vehicle No.UP73-A-1495.

2. Since there is no cross appeal by the
owner, driver and the insurer of the
offending vehicle as such, the factum of
accident and negligence is not disputed by
the respondents.

3. In this case, the claimant asserted
that he was approximately 26 years of age
on the date of the accident, was selfemployed, who was giving tuition to
children, and was earning Rs. 6,000 per
month, and his one side of the body became
paralyzed due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, he became permanently
disabled
requiring
two
persons
as
attendants to help him. The claimant
asserted that he has become 100% disabled.

4. The Tribunal in the absence of any
documentary evidence of occupation and
income of the claimant assessed his income
at only Rs.2,500/- per month, applied a
multiplier of 18, deducted one-third amount
towards
personal
expenses,
awarded
Rs.90,000/- towards treatment expenses
and Rs.8,000/- towards pain, suffering, and
transportation expenses.

5. Since the claimant submitted
permanent disability certificate of 70%, as
such, the Tribunal has only awarded
compensation on that basis. In all, the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum, aggrieved against which,
the claimant has filed this appeal for
enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance
Company,
has
submitted that since no documentary proof
of occupation and income was submitted
by the claimant, as such, the Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income of the claimant
at Rs.2,500/- per month.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the
claimant
has
also
not
proved
the
expenditure incurred on the attendants and
the claimant was not 100% disabled, as
such, the Tribunal has rightly assessed his
permanent disability at 70%.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for
both the sides and perused the record of the
lower court.

9. Before the Tribunal, the claimant
Nitin Kumar Tiwari examined himself as
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
PW-1, who deposed that he sustained
serious injuries in his head and leg and
remained unconscious for about a week
after the accident. He was treated in
Virendra Hospital, Allahabad for about a
month. He suffered serious injuries in the
accident and regained full consciousness
after about three months. He was also
treated at Swarooprani Hospital, Allahabad,
but was later admitted to Virendra Hospital
for better treatment by his father. An
amount of Rs.3 lacs was spent on his
treatment. He further deposed that due to
the injuries sustained in the accident, his
left side of the body has been paralyzed due
to which he has become permanently
disabled
regarding
which,
CMO,
Kaushambi has issued a certificate of 70%
permanent disability. He further deposed
that at the time of the accident, he was aged
about
26
years
and
was
studying
B.A.(Bachelor
of
Arts).
Before
the
accident, he was imparting tuition to
students of Class 5 to 8 from which he was
earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Besides that,
he was also involved in farming and was
earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In this way,
he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month from
both the occupations, but after the accident,
he has become permanently disabled. Now
he continuously requires the assistance of
two persons for his routine work, and each
of them are being paid wages at the rate of
Rs.70/- per day. He further deposed that he
was unable to do any work and was also
not able to discharge his marital obligations
and look after his family.

10. In the cross-examination by the
Insurance Company, he deposed that at the
time of the accident, he was a student of
B.A. IIIrd year and was giving tuition and
was also doing farming from which he was
earning about Rs.8,000/- per month. He
further deposed that he was giving tuition
to 20 children. He suffered injuries in head,
neck and leg and remained hospitalized in
Virendra
Hospital,
Allahabad
from
27.10.2006 till 25.11.2006. He admitted
that he was not undergoing treatment at
present, but deposed that whenever he
experiences discomfort, he seeks medical
treatment.

11. It is apparent that the claimant has
deposed that he has become permanently
disabled due to the injuries sustained in the
accident and has also filed his permanent
disability certificate which discloses that
due to left sided hemiparesis he has
suffered 70% permanent disability. It is
also apparent that the Insurance Company
has not cross-examined the claimant on the
issue of permanent disability and paralysis,
suffered by the claimant, as such, there is
no ground to disbelieve that the claimant
has become permanently disabled and is
not in a condition to do any job.

12. 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 percentage of
loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from
the percentage of permanent disability.
11 All. Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sunder Lal & Ors.
283
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] )

13. The Apex Court in the case of
Sarnam Singh vs. Sriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 8 SCC
193,
while
analysing
when
partial
permanent 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,
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he was terminated from service w.e.f. 31-52015. 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 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.

14. 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 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 threeJudge 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.

15. 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
11 All. Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sunder Lal & Ors.
285
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.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable vs. Laxman Maruti
Jadhav (Dead) through LRS. and others,
(2023) 13 SCC 334 while directing that in
cases of permanent disability, there should not
be any deduction for personal expenses, held as
under:-

15. The High Court deducted 50% of
compensation towards personal expenses. The
present case being not of death and the claim
not being made by the dependents, but the same
being by a survivor in the accident with severe
injuries resulting into permanent disability,
there could not be any justification for
deduction of personal expenses. We do not
approve the said deduction in view of the
judgment of this Court in Lalan D. [Lalan D. v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 805
: (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 253 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri)
238]

17. In the light of the above decisions of the
Apex Court it is apparent that in each case of
permanent disability, the Tribunal has to assess the
corresponding loss of earning capacity. It is further
apparent that in the case of permanent disability,
there was no need to deduct 1/3rd or any other
percentage from out of the income towards the
personal and living expenses.

18. It is true that in the instant case, as per
the disability certificate of the claimant, he is
only 70% permanently disabled, but it is
apparent that he is not in a position to do any
work and has become 100% functionally
disabled, as such, in the instant case, the
compensation is to be determined by assessing
his earning capacity loss as 100%. Considering
the nature of disability, loss of income is, thus
held to be 100% and not 70% as held by the
Tribunal.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Kajal vs.
Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 ,
Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7
SCC 738 , Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3692 has held that where a claimant has suffered
100% permanent functional disability due to an
accident, the compensation under the head of loss
of income must be awarded on the basis of the
minimum wages of a skilled workman prevailing at
the time of the accident in that region and should
not be assumed on a notional basis.

20. In the instant case, the claimant claimed
that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but no
documentary proof of occupation and income
was furnished by the claimant before the
Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal has assessed his
income at only Rs. 2,500/- per month, which is
inadequate, keeping in view that even the
minimum wages of skilled workman at the time
of the accident in the State of UP was about
Rs.4,500/- per month, as such, his income is
assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of
the accident.

21. 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.

22. The Apex Court in the case of Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable (supra) has awarded
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation towards attendant charges,
future medical expenses, loss of marriage
prospects, pain and suffering.

23. Learned counsel for the claimantappellant has admitted that the claimant is married
and he is not undergoing further treatment, as
such, no amount of compensation is required to be
awarded towards loss of marriage prospects and
future medical expenses to the claimant.

24. In view of the above statutory law
and precedents of the Apex Court, the
compensation payable to the claimant is
redetermined as under:-

S.N
o.

Compensat
ion Heads

Amount
Awarded(in Rs.)

In
Accordanc
e with.

1.
Monthly
Income of
the
claimant on
the basis of
minimum
wages
of
skilled
workman

4,500/-

Kajal
(supra),
Master
Ayush
(supra)
&
Baby
Sakshi
Greola
(supra)

2.
Annual
income of
the
claimant

4,500X12=
54,000/-

Kajal
(supra),
Master
Ayush
(supra)
&
Baby
Sakshi
Greola
(supra)

3.
Add future
prospects
@50%
since
claimant
was below
40 years
27,000/-
UP Motor
Vehicle
Rules,1998
,
Pappu
Deo
Yadav(sup
ra)
and
Sidram(su
pra)

4.
Total
annual loss
of
future
income

54,000+27,000=81,
000/-

UP Motor
Vehicle
Rules,1998
,
Pappu
Deo
Yadav(sup
ra)
and
Sidram(su
pra)

5.
Multiplier
applied
since age of
claimant
was about
25 years( as
per
High
School
certificate)
18
Pranay
Sethi
(supra)
6.
Total future
loss
of
income due
to
100%
functional
disability

81,000X18=14,58,0
00/-
Pranay
Sethi(supra
)
Raj
Kumar(su
pra)
and
Sarnam
Singh(supr
a)

7.
Transportat
ion
expenses

1,00,000/-
-
8.
Treatment
expenses
(same
as
awarded by
tribunal)

90,000/-
-
9.
Attendant
expenses @
minimum
wages
of
one
unskilled
workman
@Rs.3,000/
- per month
for 18 years

3,000X12X18=6,48
,000/-
-
10.
Compensati
on towards
pain
and
suffering

3,00,000/-
-
11.
Compensati
on for loss
of
amenities

1,00,000/-
-
12.
Total
compensati
on
26,96,000/-
-

25. In this way, the claimant is entitled
to total compensation of Rs.26,96,000/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from
11 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sirajulhasan & Ors.
287
the date of filing of the claim petition till
it's actual payment, which is to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

26. The appeal is allowed. The
award of the tribunal is modified to the
above extent.

27. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months.

28. The tribunal is directed to
deposit the total enhanced compensation
alongwith interest in a fixed deposit of a
bank, bearing monthly interest and the
claimant will be entitled to withdraw the
accrued monthly interest regularly for
sustaining his livelihood. The tribunal
will be at liberty to permit withdrawal
from
fixed
deposit
in
special
circumstances, keeping in view the
claimants' requirement.

29. The original record of the lower
court be sent back, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 287
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2987 of 2007

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sirajulhasan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Bhartendu Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Mohd. Asim
Zulfiquar, Vijay Kant Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether whether the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was legally justified in
fastening liability upon the insurer to indemnify
the compensation awarded, despite the insurer's
objection that the offending auto, being a
commercial transport vehicle, was allegedly
driven without a valid and effective driving
licence authorising the driver to operate a
transport vehicle, and consequently whether
such alleged deficiency amounted to a breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
sufficient to absolve the insurer of liability under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 2(21), 163A, 164 - U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - r.
220-A - The facts, in brief are that on 03
July 1999, a minor aged about 15 years,
died in a motor accident involving Auto
No.
UP-73-A-0171,
which
was
being
driven
by
its
owner,
following
the
accident,
the
deceased's
parents
instituted Claim Petition before the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Kaushambi,
seeking
compensation
under
Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal, by
judgment and award dated 18.07.2007,
awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- for the
death of the minor and directed the
insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
to indemnify the owner of the vehicle -
Aggrieved thereby, the insurer preferred
the instant appeal u/s 173 of Act,
contending that the offending auto was a
commercial/transport vehicle and that the
owner-cum-driver did not possess a valid
and
effective
driving
licence
with
transport endorsement on the date of the
accident, amounting to breach of policy
conditions, whereas the claimants resisted
the appeal asserting that the auto had an
unladen weight of only 370 kg and thus
fell within the category of a Light Motor
Vehicle for which a separate transport