# Reshmi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 493
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-16
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 79 of 1999
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reshmi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47615
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section
176
-
Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 25 years old
and driving tempo on his own earning a
sum of Rs. 2000/-per month-Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs. 92,000/-
but not granted future loss of income-the
deceased
was
survived
by
seven
dependents- By applying the multiplier of
18, the total loss of dependency is
assessed
Rs.
4,03200/--Thus,
the
claimants
held

entitled
for
total
compensation Rs. 4,73,400/- @ 6% per
annum-Since deceased was not author or
co-author of accident-Thus deduction of
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
50% form compensation, not permissible.
(Paras 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Reshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
493

(v) A charge sheet has already been
submitted on 13.07.2021;

(vi) The applicant's services have
already
been
terminated
through
a
resolution dated 15-06-2020 and he is not
in a position to tamper with the evidence.

(vii) The affidavit filed in support of
the bail application contains an undertaking
that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he
will not abscond and he will not tamper
with the evidence.

(viii) No material has been placed by the
informant Bank to doubt the aforesaid
undertaking given in the affidavit and to
show that there is any circumstance
necessitating continuance of the applicant's
incarceration
without
his
guilt
being
established in trial and without his conviction.

28. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts,
I am of the view that the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail pending conclusion of
the trial. The bail application is accordingly
allowed.

29. Let the applicant - Anil Kumar
Nanda, be released on bail in Case
Crime No. 146 of 2019 under Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A, 204, 120
B of I.P.C. and Sections 66 C and 66 D
of the Information Technology Act,
2000, Police Station Jawan, District
Aligarh, on his furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to following
conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with
the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence any
witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before
the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.

30. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move an application before this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 493
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2021

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 79 of 1999

Reshmi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, Sri Vidya Sagar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Kumar Rai, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Sri
Shivendra Narayan Singh, Sri Rajiv Ojha

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section
176
-
Enhancement
of
compensation-deceased was 25 years old
and driving tempo on his own earning a
sum of Rs. 2000/-per month-Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs. 92,000/-
but not granted future loss of income-the
deceased
was
survived
by
seven
dependents- By applying the multiplier of
18, the total loss of dependency is
assessed
Rs.
4,03200/--Thus,
the
claimants
held

entitled
for
total
compensation Rs. 4,73,400/- @ 6% per
annum-Since deceased was not author or
co-author of accident-Thus deduction of
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
50% form compensation, not permissible.
(Paras 1 to 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Renu
Singh & ors. FAFO No. 1818 of 2012

2. Khenyei Vs NIACL & ors. (2015) LawSuit SC
469

3. Malarvizhi & ors. Vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd
& anr. (2020) 4 SCC 228

4. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Indira Devi &
ors. (2018) 7 SCC 715

5. The OICL Vs Mangey Ram & ors. (2019) 0
Supreme (All) 1067

6. NIACL Vs Urmila Shukla MANU/ SCOR/
24098/2021

7. Kirti & ors. Vs OICL (2021) 1 TAC 1

8. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs OICL (2007) 2
GLH 291

9. Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr.
FAFO No. 23 of 2001 Tej Kumari Sharma Vs
Chola Mandlam M.S. Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. FAFO
No. 2871 of 2016

10. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Asif
& ors..

11. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pushpa &
ors., Smt. Sarla Verma & ors.. Vs Delhi
Transport Corp. & anr.. and Deepal Girishbha
iSoni& ors.. Vs United India Insurance Company
Ltd.

12. F.A.F.O No. 560 of 2012 Smt. Jagdish
Kumari & ors. Vs Om Prakash & ors. and in
Asif's case(supra)

13. Deepal Girishbhai Soni'scase(Supra), Smt.
Sarla Verma's case(supra), National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.., United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunil Kumar & anr..

14. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shah
Mahasukhlal Mafatlal

15. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors.. Vs
Hansrajbhai Vs Kodala& ors..

16. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Curumallamma& ors..

17. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunil
Kumar & ors..

18. Ramkhiladi& ors. Vs The United India
Insurance Company & ors..

19. The New India Assurance Company Vs
Jasmin Bibi

20. The Branch Manager, Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited Vs Dilurai

21. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt.
Maya.

22. Hansrajbhai Vs Kodala'sDeepal Girishbhai
Soni's Gurumallamma's and Sunil Kumar cases

23. K.S.Pandurange Vs St. of Karn.

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

1. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Rajiv Ojha, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and
award dated 23.11.1998 passed by IIndAdditional District Judge (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal) Azamgarh, (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 87
of 1990.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 07.05.1990 at 2:00 p.m in
front of house of Madhuban Murari Kahar,
Police
Station
Kandharpur,
District
9 All. Reshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
Azamgarh, driver of jeep bearing no.
U.H.W.-5319 driving his jeep negligent and
rashly hits Prabhuram's tempo and as a
result of which Prabhuram sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to his
injuries on the spot.

4. The deceased was 25 years of age
at the time of accident. He was driving
tempo and earning Rs. 1000/- p.m and
maintaining agriculture field. He was
survived by his mother, widow and three
sons and two daughters. The Tribunal has
considered his income to be Rs. 15,000/-
p.a, deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses
of
the
deceased,
granted
multiplier
of
17,
granted
Rs.5,000/-
towards consortium, granted Rs.2,000/-
towards funeral expenses and ultimately
assessed the total compensation to be Rs.
92,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the witnesses have
deposed that driver of the jeep was driving
the vehicle rashly and negligently. The
charge-sheet was laid against the driver of
the jeep and not against the deceased. The
ocular version is in favour of deceased. It is
further submitted that therefore issue of
negligence has been wrongly decided just
because of vehicles had collided on the
highway but on tempo side which can be
said to be a non metal road. It is further
submitted that income of Rs. 15,000/- p.a is
on the lower side. No amount of future loss
of income is granted. Multiplier of 18
should have been granted instead of 17 and
Rs. 7,000/- was the only amount is granted
for loss of consortium and towards funeral
expenses. The Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head of interest. The
undisputed facts are that accident occurred
on 07.05.1990. The deceased was the driver
and owner of the tempo, he was driving the
vehicle and was maintaining agricultural
field. He was young person of 25 years
who had left behind him three sons and two
daughters, a mother and a widow and
therefore, the deductions should have been
1/5th as per the judgements of Sarla Verma
and Sushma Thomas and was applicable to
facts of those days and multiplier should
have been given 18 and not 17.

6. As against this, Shri Rajiv Ojha,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentInsurance Company contends that as far as
issue of negligence is concerned it was the
tempo vis-a-vis jeep and the deceased was
driving tempo which is bigger vehicle then
the jeep. It is further submitted that the
finding of fact as far as negligence is
concerned should not be disturbed. It is
further submitted that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for any
interference by this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, as far as negligence is
concerned I have perused the judgement,
the fact that deceased was not having
permanent license and his vehicle was
overloaded is a factor which goes against
the applicant. I am in agreement with Shri
Rajiv Ojha, learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company that the finding as far
as negligence is concerned not to be
interfered and the same not interfered.

8. The term negligence means failure
to exercise care towards others which a
reasonable and prudent person would in a
circumstance or taking action which such a
reasonable person would not. Negligence
can be both intentional or accidental which
is normally accidental. More particularly, it
connotes reckless driving and the injured
must always prove that the either side is
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
negligent. If the injury rather death is
caused by something owned or controlled
by the negligent party then he is directly
liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa
loquitur" meaning thereby "the things
speak for itself" would apply.

9. The principle of contributory
negligence has been discussed time and
again. A person who either contributes or
author of the accident would be liable for
his contribution to the accident having
taken place.

10. The Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of
2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And
Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under: :

"16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care and
caution expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no
legal consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection
where two roads cross each other, it is the
duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down
and if driver did not slow down at
intersection, but continued to proceed at a
high speed without caring to notice that
another vehicle was crossing, then the
conduct of driver necessarily leads to
conclusion that vehicle was being driven by
him rashly as well as negligently.

18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations
for driving of motor vehicles which also
form part of every Driving License. Clause6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the
driver of every motor vehicle to slow down
vehicle at every intersection or junction of
roads or at a turning of the road. It is also
provided that driver of the vehicle should
not enter intersection or junction of roads
unless he makes sure that he would not
thereby endanger any other person. Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches intersection
of roads, particularly when he could have
easily seen, that the car over which
deceased was riding, was approaching
intersection.

19. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent
as coming within the principle of liability
defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3
HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of
pedestrian, the roads of this country have
been rendered by the use of motor vehicles,
9 All. Reshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases
where drivers of motor vehicles who have
caused accidents, are unknown. In fact
such cases are increasing in number. Where
a pedestrian without negligence on his part
is injured or killed by a motorist, whether
negligently or not, he or his legal
representatives, as the case may be, should
be entitled to recover damages if principle
of social justice should have any meaning
at all.

22. By the above process, the burden
of proof may ordinarily be cast on the
defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

emphasis added

11. The Apex Court in Khenyei Vs.
New India Assurance Company Limited
& Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469 has
held as under:

"4. It is a case of composite
negligence where injuries have been caused
to the claimants by combined wrongful act
of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident
caused by negligence of joint tort feasors,
all the persons who aid or counsel or direct
or join in committal of a wrongful act, are
liable. In such case, the liability is always
joint and several. The extent of negligence
of joint tort feasors in such a case is
immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of
the plaintiff/claimant and need not be
determined by the by the court. However, in
case all the joint tort feasors are before the
court, it may determine the extent of their
liability for the purpose of adjusting interse equities between them at appropriate
stage. The liability of each and every joint
tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant
cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and
several liability. In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between tort feasors for making payment to
the plaintiff is not permissible as the
plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover
the
entire
amount
from
the
easiest
targets/solvent defendant.

14. There is a difference between
contributory and composite negligence. In
the case of contributory negligence, a
person who has himself contributed to the
extent cannot claim compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident to
the extent of his own negligence;whereas in
the case of composite negligence, a person
who has suffered has not contributed to the
accident but the outcome of combination of
negligence of two or more other persons.
This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan &
Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in
case of contributory negligence, injured
need
not
establish
the
extent
of
responsibility
of
each
wrong
doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong doer separately. It is only in the case
of contributory negligence that the injured
himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is
required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the
injuries have to be reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder :

"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to
the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a
result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrong doers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a
case, each wrong doer, is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrong-doer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrong-doer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence of
the part of the injured which contributed to
the
accident
is
referred
to
as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stands reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.
7. Therefore, when two vehicles are
involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of his responsibility, that is his contributory
negligence. Therefore where the injured is
himself partly liable, the principle of
'composite negligence' will not apply nor
can there be an automatic inference that
the negligence was 50:50 as has been
assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to
have examined the extent of contributory
negligence of the appellant and thereby
avoided
confusion
between
composite
negligence and contributory negligence.
The High Court has failed to correct the
said error."
18. This Court in Challa Bharathamma
&Nanjappan (supra) has dealt with the
breach of policy conditions by the owner
when the insurer was asked to pay the
compensation fixed by the tribunal and the
right to recover the same was given to the
insurer in the executing court concerned if
the dispute between the insurer and the
owner
was
the
subject-matter
of
determination for the tribunal and the issue
has been decided in favour of the insured.
The same analogy can be applied to the
instant cases as the liability of the joint tort
feasor is joint and several. In the instant case,
there is determination of inter se liability of
composite negligence to the extent of
negligence of 2/3rd and 1/3rd of respective
drivers. Thus, the vehicle - trailor-truck
which was not insured with the insurer, was
negligent to the extent of 2/3rd. It would be
open to the insurer being insurer of the bus
after making payment to claimant to recover
from the owner of the trailor-truck the
amount to the aforesaid extent in the
execution proceedings. Had there been no
determination of the inter se liability for want
of evidence or other joint tort feasor had not
been impleaded, it was not open to settle such
a dispute and to recover the amount in
execution proceedings but the remedy would
be to file another suit or appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law.

What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows :

(i) In the case of composite negligence,
plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or
any one of the joint tort feasors and to
recover the entire compensation as liability of
joint tort feasors is joint and several.

(ii)
In
the
case
of
composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He
can recover at his option whole damages
from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors
have been impleaded and evidence is
sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to
9 All. Reshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
499
determine inter se extent of composite
negligence
of
the
drivers.
However,
determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the
purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other
after making whole of payment to the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has
satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/ extent of their negligence
has been determined by the court/tribunal,
in main case one joint tort feasor can
recover the amount from the other in the
execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate for the
court/tribunal to determine the extent of
composite negligence of the drivers of two
vehicles in the absence of impleadment of
other joint tort feasors. In such a case,
impleaded joint tort feasor should be left,
in case he so desires, to sue the other joint
tort feasor in independent proceedings after
passing of the decree or award."

 emphasis added

12. The latest decision of the Apex
Court
in
Khenyei
Vs.
New
India
Assurance Company Limited & Others,
2015 Law Suit (SC) 469 has laid down one
further
aspect
about
considering
the
negligence
more
particularly
composite/contributory
negligence.
The
deceased or the person concerned should be
shown to have contributed either to the
accident and the impact of accident upon
the victim could have been minimised if he
had taken care. In this case the deceased
was not the author or the co-author of the
accident. Hence, the oral prayer that
deduction of 50% from the compensation
be made is rejected.

13. This takes this Court to the issue
of
compensation.
The
Apex
court
decision in Malarvizhi & Ors Vs.
United
India
Insurance
Company
Limited and Another, 2020 (4) SCC 228
and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Indiro0 Devi & Ors, 2018 (7) SCC
715. and in The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Mangey Ram and
others, 2019 0 Supreme (All) 1067 and
the recent judgment of the Apex Court in
New India Assurance Company Vs.
Urmila Shukla decided by the Apex
Court
on
6.8.2021
reported
in
MANU/SCOR/24098/2021
and
Kirti
and
others
vs
oriental
insurance
company ltd reported in 2021(1) TAC
1It could not be culled out from record
that on what basis, the Tribunal has
deducted the pecuniary benefits from the
income cannot be fathomed. The income
of the deceased in the year of accident
and looking to his profession can be
considered to be Rs.2,000/- per month as
the deceased is below 50 years and
driving tempo of his own but the accident
took place in the year 1990, 40% as
future loss of income requires to be added
in view of the decision of the Apex Court
in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Deduction
should be 1/3rd and not 1/4th as
submitted by Shri Vidya Kant Shukla. As
far as amount under the head of nonpecuniary damages are concerned, it
should be Rs.70,000/- as non-pecuniary
damages.
As
far
as
multiplier
is
concerned, it is 18.

14. Hence, the total compensation
payable to the appellants is computed
herein below:

i. Income Rs 2,000/-p.m

ii. Percentage towards future prospects
: 40% namely Rs.8,00/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 2,000 + 8,00 =
Rs.28,00/-
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd :
Rs. 1,867/- (rounded up)

v. Annual Income : 1,867 x 12 =
22,400/-

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.22,400 x
18 = Rs.4,03,200/-

viii. Amount under non-pecuniary
head : 70,000/-

ix. Total compensation : Rs. 4,73,400/-

15. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, it should be 6% from the date of
filing of the petition till 1999 and 4%
thereafter as without any fault of the
Insurance Company, the matter remains
pending .

16. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Oral cross are allowed and
compensation is recalculated. Judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. The
respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit
the amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 7% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the
amount is deposited. The amount already
deposited be deducted from the amount to be
deposited. The Insurance Company will
deposit the entire amount can have their right
to recover the amount from owner and the
Insurance Company of the other vehicle. As
far as deceased is concerned, it is a case of
composite negligence, hence, the amount
cannot be deducted from the compensation
awarded to the claimants who are the heirs of
a non tort-feasor.

17. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High
Court in, total amount of interest, accrued on
the principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are
entitled to deduct appropriate amount under
the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as
provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does
not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimant to withdraw the amount without
producing the certificate from the concerned
Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view
has been reiterated by this High Court in
Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First
Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt.
Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and
another) and in First Appeal From Order
No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v.
Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing
the amount.

18. Record be sent back to tribunal
forthwith.

19. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assistting this
Court.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 500
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 614 of 2019

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sawari & Ors. ...Respondents