# Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Com. Ltd v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 937
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2520 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/regional-manager-magma-hdi-general-insurance-com-ltd-v-sanjay-kumar-ors-52602
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in determining the
quantum of compensation by assessing the
claimant's
functional
disability
at
60%,
computing loss of income on the basis of
minimum wages, and awarding 40% future
prospects,
particularly
when
the
insurer
contended that the claimant had failed to prove
the nature of his employment, his income, and
extent of disability, and further asserted that the
grant of future prospects in a case of permanent
disability was legally impermissible.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A - The
case emanates from a motor accident
occurring on 13.10.2021, wherein the
claimant Sanjay Kumar, then about 40
years of age and employed as a labourer
in a biscuit factory while also engaged in
farming,
was
travelling
when
the
offending
Bolero,
driven
negligently,
caused an accident resulting in grievous
injuries culminating in the amputation of
his right leg above the knee, rendering
him permanently disabled; he asserted a
monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- from
factory work and agriculture and produced
a Government-issued disability certificate
showing 70% permanent disability, on the
basis of which the Tribunal assessed his
functional disability at 60%, adopted
minimum wages of an unskilled labourer
for income computation, applied 40%
future
prospects,
and
awarded
compensation totalling Rs. 21,37,772/-
with 7% interest, holding the insurer
liable to indemnify the award.

Held: It is apparent that Apex Court in the case
of Sidram (infra) has held that in accident cases
involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement, compensation for future prospects
should be awarded - In view of the facts,
tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation
for future prospects, keeping in view the serious
injuries suffered by claimant due to which his
right leg was amputated above knee and he
suffered 70% permanent disability - Appeal has
got no merit and liable to be dismissed. [Paras
13, 15, 16] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Anoop
Maheshwari
v.
Oriental
Insurance
Company Ltd. & others reported in 2025 INSC
1076; Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. (2023) 3 SCC
439; National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017)16 SCC 680 - relied on
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Compensation awarded; Indemnified by insurer;
Challenged quantum of compensation; Failed to
prove; Nature of job; Disability suffered;
Disability certificate; Erred in awarding future
prospects; Minimum wages of unskilled labour;
Not
disputing
the
factum
of
accident;
Negligence of the driver; Amputation above the
knee; Permanently disabled; Unable to perform
daily activities; Functional disability; Earning
capacity
loss;
Treatment
expenses;
Transportation
expenses;
Special
diet;
Attendant expenses; Pain and suffering; Loss of
amenities; Disfigurement; Artificial leg; Loss of
expectancy of life; Future prospect; Remit back
the statutory deposit

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 2520 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
15.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Etah in MACP No. 561 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Utkarsh Birla
Advs. for the Respondents:

## Text

10 All. Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. 937
23. No other point was pressed by
learned counsel for the appellant.

24. In view of the aforesaid facts,
there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal, as such, this
appeal has no merits and is liable to be
dismissed at the admission stage.

25. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage.

26. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made
by the appellant at the time of filing of the
appeal
to
the
concerned
Tribunal,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 937
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2520 of 2025

Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General
Insurance Com. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Utkarsh Birla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in determining the
quantum of compensation by assessing the
claimant's
functional
disability
at
60%,
computing loss of income on the basis of
minimum wages, and awarding 40% future
prospects,
particularly
when
the
insurer
contended that the claimant had failed to prove
the nature of his employment, his income, and
extent of disability, and further asserted that the
grant of future prospects in a case of permanent
disability was legally impermissible.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A - The
case emanates from a motor accident
occurring on 13.10.2021, wherein the
claimant Sanjay Kumar, then about 40
years of age and employed as a labourer
in a biscuit factory while also engaged in
farming,
was
travelling
when
the
offending
Bolero,
driven
negligently,
caused an accident resulting in grievous
injuries culminating in the amputation of
his right leg above the knee, rendering
him permanently disabled; he asserted a
monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- from
factory work and agriculture and produced
a Government-issued disability certificate
showing 70% permanent disability, on the
basis of which the Tribunal assessed his
functional disability at 60%, adopted
minimum wages of an unskilled labourer
for income computation, applied 40%
future
prospects,
and
awarded
compensation totalling Rs. 21,37,772/-
with 7% interest, holding the insurer
liable to indemnify the award.

Held: It is apparent that Apex Court in the case
of Sidram (infra) has held that in accident cases
involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement, compensation for future prospects
should be awarded - In view of the facts,
tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation
for future prospects, keeping in view the serious
injuries suffered by claimant due to which his
right leg was amputated above knee and he
suffered 70% permanent disability - Appeal has
got no merit and liable to be dismissed. [Paras
13, 15, 16] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Anoop
Maheshwari
v.
Oriental
Insurance
Company Ltd. & others reported in 2025 INSC
1076; Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. (2023) 3 SCC
439; National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017)16 SCC 680 - relied on
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Compensation awarded; Indemnified by insurer;
Challenged quantum of compensation; Failed to
prove; Nature of job; Disability suffered;
Disability certificate; Erred in awarding future
prospects; Minimum wages of unskilled labour;
Not
disputing
the
factum
of
accident;
Negligence of the driver; Amputation above the
knee; Permanently disabled; Unable to perform
daily activities; Functional disability; Earning
capacity
loss;
Treatment
expenses;
Transportation
expenses;
Special
diet;
Attendant expenses; Pain and suffering; Loss of
amenities; Disfigurement; Artificial leg; Loss of
expectancy of life; Future prospect; Remit back
the statutory deposit

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 2520 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
15.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Etah in MACP No. 561 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Utkarsh Birla
Advs. for the Respondents:

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

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the insurer of the
offending Bolero No.UP-86T-8883 against
the impugned judgment and award dated
15.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Etah in MACP No. 561 of
2021, Sanjay Kumar Vs. Jattari Auto Sales,
Aligarh
Road
&
others,
whereby,
compensation of Rs.21,37,772/- alongwith
interest at the rate of 7% per annum has
been awarded to the claimant for the
injuries sustained in a motor accident
which occurred on 13.10.2021, which was
ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of
the offending vehicle.

2.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant-insurance
company
submitted
that he is only challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the tribunal on
the ground that the claimant failed to prove
the nature of job and also the disability
suffered by him. He also submitted that the
tribunal has erred in awarding future
prospects to the claimant. It was also
submitted that the tribunal has erred in
assessing the compensation on the basis of
minimum wages of unskilled labour since it
was not clear in which capacity the
claimant was working in a factory. It was
also specifically submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that he is not
disputing the factum of accident and the
negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the appellant, perused the impugned
judgment and documents submitted with
the appeal.

4. The claimant stated in the claim
petition that, on the date of the accident, he
was about 40 years old and was employed
in a bakery factory, earning Rs.20,000/- per
month. He was also engaged in farming,
earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, thus having
a total monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. He
further submitted that, due to the accident,
he sustained injuries resulting in the
amputation of his right leg above the knee,
and has been permanently disabled. As a
result, he is unable to perform his daily
activities and is also unable to sustain his
family. The claimant filed his disability
certificate, which was issued by the
Government of India, according to which
he
had
suffered
70%
permanent
10 All. Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. 939
disablement, but the tribunal has assessed
his functional disability at 60%.

5. The tribunal has duly considered
that at the time of the accident, the claimant
was working in a Biscuit factory of
Bhagwan Das, Agra as a labour and due to
amputation of his right let above the
knee,he was not in a position to lift weight
and was also not capable of transporting the
goods from one place to another because he
was dependent on others. In this fact
situation, the tribunal has assessed his
functional disability/earning capacity loss
at 60%.

6. The tribunal has assessed the
compensation on minimum wages of
unskilled labour prevailing at the time of
the accident which was Rs.1,10,220/- per
annum. The tribunal has awarded future
prospect of 40% and has taken the loss of
earning capacity at Rs.66,132/- annually.
The tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/-
towards treatment expenses, Rs.20,000/-
towards
transportation
expenses,
Rs.25,000/-
towards
special
diet,
Rs.54,000/-
attendant
expenses,
Rs.20,000/- towards hospitality expenses,
Rs.1 lac towards pain and suffering,
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities,
Rs.50,000/- towards disfigurement, Rs.3
lacs towards artificial leg and Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of expectancy of life. It is
apparent that the tribunal has not awarded
any interest on the future prospect of
Rs.3,96,792/-.
7. The main submission of learned
counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal
has erred in awarding future prospect to the
claimant keeping in view his nature of
injury.

8. Rule 220-A (5) of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules 1998 reads as under:-
 220-A.
Determination
of
compensation- (1)***

 (2)***

 (3)***

 (4)***

 (5)For
determination
of
compensation in case of injuries, partial or
permanent disability provisions of Second
Schedule of the Act shall apply :

 Provided
that
the
Claims
Tribunal may also award compensation for
future prospects according to sub-rule (3)
in case of permanent disability depending
upon the nature, extent and its effect on the
future of disabled claimants.

9. From the evidence on record, it
is apparent that the claimant was working
as a labourer in a Biscuit factory whose
right let was amputated above the knee,
who suffered 70% permanent disability, but
the tribunal has only assessed his functional
disability/earning loss at 60% which cannot
be said to be perverse.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has relied upon the judgment of
Apex Court in Anoop Maheshwari Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. &
others reported in 2025 INSC 1076, in
support of his argument that the tribunal
has erred in awarding future prospect to the
claimant.
11. The Apex Court in the case of
Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. (2023) 3
SCC 439, held as under:-

 31. It is now a well-settled
position of law that even in cases of
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
 (emphasis supplied)
12. I have considered the above
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Anoop Maheshwari(supra) in which the
factual
situation
was
different.
The
claimant was running a business and since
the High Court had already awarded just
compensation, the Apex Court had refused
to grant any compensation towards loss of
future prospect, but it has not been held by
the Apex Court that in case of permanent
disability, compensation towards future
prospects cannot be granted. It is apparent
that under Rule 220-A of the above Rules,
the tribunal can grant compensation for
future prospect in a case involving
permanent disability and in this case also
considering the factual situation, the
tribunal has granted compensation for
future prospects at the rate of 40%, keeping
in view the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017)16 SCC 680,
since the claimant was aged below 40 years
at the time of the accident. It is apparent
that the tribunal has not awarded any
interest on future prospects, which is
erroneous.
13. It is also apparent that the Apex
Courtin the case of Sidram(supra) has held
that in accident cases involving serious
injuries resulting in permanent disablement,
compensation for future prospects should
be awarded.
14. No other issue has been pressed
by the learned counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts,
the tribunal has not erred in awarding
compensation for future prospects, keeping
in view the serious injuries suffered by the
claimant due to which his right leg was
amputated above knee and he suffered 70%
permanent disability.
16. Accordingly, this appeal has
got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at
the admission stage.
17. The appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage.
18. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is
affirmed.
19. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit made by the appellant
to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

P.I.L. No. 813 of 2025

Samir Kumar Banerji & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents