# Sangam Lal v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 384
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-08
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 892 of 2015
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sangam-lal-v-the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-anr-54020
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12.
Total compensation

11,63,100/-

18. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,63,100/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of actual payment
of compensation, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of offending three wheeler No.UP-70AT-3092. The owner of the above offending vehicle is not required to pay any compensation either
to the claimants or the Insurance Company.

19. Since the cross-objection was filed with delay of 1625 days, the claimants are not entitled
to any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the period of
delay i.e. from 13.10.2016 to 25.03.2021.

20. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the owner i.e. F.A.F.O. No.7 of 2026 and crossobjection preferred by the claimants are allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the
tribunal dated 21.07.2009 and 29.07.2009 is modified to the above extent.

21. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation
alongwith interest within a period of two months in the concerned tribunal. The tribunal is at liberty
to apportion the enhanced amount of compensation proportionately among the claimants, keeping
in view their age and dependency.

22. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the owner at the time of
filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to refund this
amount along with accrued interest to the owner of the offending vehicle, without any delay.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 384
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 892 of 2015

Sangam Lal ...Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries
resulting in permanent disability suffered by the claimant was just, fair, and in accordance with settled
principles governing assessment of functional disability, loss of earning capacity, future prospects, application
of multiplier, and award under non-pecuniary heads and whether the Tribunal erred either in assessing the
percentage of functional disability and income or in declining enhancement, thereby warranting interference in
appellate jurisdiction by High Court.
1 All. Sangam Lal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
385
Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 - R. 220 - A - Compensation -
Enhancement of - The instant appeals arise out of a judgment and award dated 15.01.2015
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, whereby compensation of ₹5,03,310/-
with interest at 7% per annum was awarded to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor
accident that occurred on 29.03.2009 by the offending Truck - At the time of the accident, the
claimant, aged about 16 years, suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg
above the knee and amputation of two toes of the left foot, leading to permanent disability. The
Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 80% and computed compensation accordingly,
directing the insurer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., to indemnify the award. Aggrieved
thereby, the insurer preferred an appeal seeking reduction of compensation on the ground of
erroneous assessment of disability and income, while the claimant filed a cross-appeal seeking
enhancement on the plea that he had suffered 100% functional disability, was entitled to
compensation based on minimum wages of a skilled workman, addition towards future
prospects, application of a higher multiplier, and enhancement under non-pecuniary heads. (E11)
Held: Even if, it is assumed that the claimant was only 16 years old and was not in any gainful employment
at the time of the accident even then, he is entitled to get compensation on the basis that he was a skilled
workman - Since, the accident occurred on 29.03.2009 and at the time of the accident the minimum wages of
a skilled workman prevailing in the State of U.P. was about Rs.4,500/- per month, the claimant is entitled to
get compensation on this basis - The claimant is also entitled to get compensation for future prospect at the
rate of 50% of his income keeping in view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav
(infra) and Sidram (infra) as well as R. 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - It is apparent that since it is a
case of permanent disability no deduction towards personal expenses of the claimant is to be made while
assessing compensation, in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (infra) -
Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the amputation suffered by the claimant, compensation towards
non pecuniary heads also requires enhancement, since the tribunal has only awarded an amount of
Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards special diet, which is grossly inadequate.The
claimant is also entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects, due to permanent disability - The
claimant has not led any evidence as to whether he is using artificial leg or not and the future medical
expenses, as such, no compensation can be awarded to the claimant under these heads - Thus, the claimant
is entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,59,510/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum (as awarded by
tribunal) from the date of filing of claim petition till it's actual payment, which is to be indemnified by insurer
of offending Truck - Accordingly, appeal filed by insurance company is dismissed, and appeal filed by claimant
for enhancement of compensation is allowed. [Paras 14, 21, 22, 24]

Case Law Cited
Sarnam Singh v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 193; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar &
Another (2011) 1 SCC 343; 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; Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari &
Another 2025 INSC 1070; Sushil Kumar & Another v. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another, FAFO
No.2581 of 2011 decided on 26.04.2017 - referred to

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; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 - followed

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
First Appeal; s. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Permanent disability;
Functional disability; Loss of earning capacity; Assessment of compensation; Minimum wages; Multiplier;
Future prospects; Non-pecuniary heads; Pain and suffering; Special diet; Medical expenses; Interest awarded;
Indemnified by insurer; Enhancement of compensation; Deduction towards personal expenses;
Physiotherapist;
Disability
certificate;
Percentage
of
disability;
Appellate
interference;
Award
affirmed/modified; R. 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998,

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From Order No. - 892 of 2015
Connected with First Appeal From Order No. - 697 of 2015

From the Judgment and Award dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.1. Allahabad, in MACP No. 521 of 2011.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava Sinha

Adv. for the Respondent:
Anubhav Sinha

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

1. FAFO No. 697 of 2015 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the insurer of the offending Truck No.MH-04-DK-4585 against the impugned
judgment and award dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, court no.1, Allahabad, in MACP No. 521 of 2011, Sangam Lal Vs. Jitendra Pal
Singh & another, whereby, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on
29.03.2009, the claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,03,310/-, alongwith interest at
the rate of 7% per annum, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending
Truck No.MH-04-DK-4585.

2. FAFO No.892 of 2015 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and
award dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
court no.1, Allahabad, in MACP No. 521 of 2011, Sangam Lal Vs. Jitendra Pal Singh & another,
whereby, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 29.03.2009, the claimant
has been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,03,310/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum,
which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Truck No.MH-04-DK4585.

3. FAFO No.892 of 2015 is admitted.

4. Since, both the appeals arise from the same judgment and award as such, they are being
heard and decided by the common judgment.
1 All. Sangam Lal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
387

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company in FAFO No.697 of 2015 submitted
that the claimant allegedly suffered only 60% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in
the accident but it was considered to be 80% by the tribunal only on the basis of certificate issued
by the Physiotherapist, which was not at all admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the
claimant was a minor who was not earning, but still the tribunal has assessed compensation by
taking his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- which is erroneous. With these submission, it was prayed
that the appeal be allowed and the compensation paid to the claimant be reduced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that due to the injuries
suffered in the accident, the right leg of the claimant was amputated from the knee and his two little
toes of left foot were also amputated due to which he suffered 100% functional disability but the
tribunal has only assessed the disability of the claimant at only 80% which requires enhancement.
She further submitted that due to the amputation, the claimant was unable to do any manual labour,
as such, it was a fit case where the tribunal should have awarded compensation by taking functional
disability of the claimant at 100%. She further submitted that the claimant was also entitled to
compensation for future prospects at the rate of 50% in accordance with Rule 220-A of the UP
Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, but the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards it. It was
further submitted that since the deceased was about 16 years old, a multiplier of 18 was to be
applied for assessing compensation, but the tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16, which requires
enhancement. It was further submitted that the tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of
compensation towards non pecuniary heads which require substantial enhancement keeping in view
of the various precedents of the Apex Court. 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.

7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents submitted with the appeal.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC
343 has held that the tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability
as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity and in each case, the tribunal has to
independently assess the earning capacity loss of the claimant by ascertaining what activities the
claimant could carry on inspite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
his injuries. It was further held that where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted
Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such
certificates.

9. 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
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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.

10. In the instant case, due to the injuries suffered by the claimant his right leg has been
amputated through knee and he has also suffered amputation of his two small toes in left foot due
to which as per the certificate issued by the CMO, Pratapgarh, he has suffered 60% permanent
disability. The certificate has been issued by the duly constituted medical board whose authenticity
has not been challenged by the appellant-insurance company by filing any contra evidence.

11. The claimant has also filed certificate issued by Department of Physiotherapy, B.Y.L. Nair
Charitable Hospital & T.N.M. College, Bombay, which discloses that he has suffered 75%
permanent disability in right lower limb due to right knee disarticulation and 5% permanent
disability in left lower limb due to 4th-5th ray amputation, due to which the claimant has suffered
total disability of 80%.

12. The tribunal has noted that the right leg of the claimant has been amputated from the knee
and his fourth and fifth toe of left leg have also been amputated and on this basis the tribunal has
assessed functional disability of the claimant at 80%. From the written statement filed by vehicle
owner, it is evident that the claimant was working as a Khalasi on his truck which involves physical
labour. It is apparent that due to to the amputation suffered by the claimant he is unable to do any
job involving physical labour in future and, as such, there was 100% functional disability. The
tribunal has only assessed the functional disability at 80%, which requires enhancement.

13. 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
1 All. Sangam Lal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
389
3692 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another 2025 INSC 1070
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.

14. In view of this, even if, it is assumed that the claimant was only 16 years old and was not
in any gainful employment at the time of the accident even then, he is entitled to get compensation
on the basis that he was a skilled workman. Since, the accident occurred on 29.03.2009 and at the
time of the accident the minimum wages of a skilled workman prevailing in the State of U.P. was
about Rs.4,500/- per month, the claimant is entitled to get compensation on this basis.

15. 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 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.

16. 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
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

17. 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]

18. As per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, if the claimant was below 40
years at the time of accident, he is entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @50% in
cases of serious permanent disability.

19. 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.

20. The claimant is also entitled to get compensation for future prospect at the rate of 50% of
his income keeping in view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pappu
Deo Yadav (supra) and Sidram (supra) as well as Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,
1998. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation on this account. It is further apparent that
since it is a case of permanent disability no deduction towards personal expenses of the claimant is
to be made while assessing compensation, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra). It is further apparent that since the claimant was only about 16
years old at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 18 is to be applied for assessing
compensation,but the tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16 which requires enhancement, 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.

21. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the amputation suffered by the claimant,
compensation towards non pecuniary heads also requires enhancement, since the tribunal has only
awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards special diet,
which is grossly inadequate.The claimant is also entitled to compensation for loss of marriage
prospects, due to permanent disability.
1 All. Sangam Lal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
391

22. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant has not led any evidence as to whether he
is using artificial leg or not and the future medical expenses, as such, no compensation can be
awarded to the claimant under these heads.

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

S.No.
Compensation Head
Amount Awarded (in Rs.)
In accordance 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)
and
Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel (supra)
2.
Annual income of the claimant

4,500X12=54,000/-
Kajal (supra), Master Ayush (supra), Baby
Sakshi
Greola
(supra)
and
Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel (supra)
3.
Add future prospects @50% since
claimant was about 16 years old
on the date of the accident.
27,000/-
UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, Pappu Deo
Yadav(supra) and Sidram(supra)
4.
Total annual loss of future
income
81,000/-
UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, Pappu Deo
Yadav(supra) and Sidram(supra)

5.
Multiplier applied since age of
claimant was about 16 years
18
Pranay Sethi (supra)

6.
Total future loss of income due to
100% functional disability
81,000X18=14,58,000/-

Pranay Sethi (supra)
7.
Medical Expenses
26,510/-
As awarded by the tribunal
8.
Compensation
towards
pain,suffering
and
loss
of
amenities
1,00,000/-
-
9.
Special diet expenses
25,000/-
-
10.
Loss of future marriage prospects
50,000/-
-
11.
Total compensation
16,59,510/-

24. In this way, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,59,510/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum (as awarded by the tribunal) 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 Truck No.MH04-DK-4585.

25. Accordingly, FAFO No.697 of 2015 preferred by the insurance company is dismissed.

26. FAFO No.892 of 2015 preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is
allowed. The award of the tribunal dated 15.01.2015 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. Office is directed to remit the statutory deposit made by the appellant insurance company
in FAFO No.697 of 2015 to the concerned tribunal, forthwith.

29. Interim order, if any, in FAFO No. 697 of 2015, stands vacated.
----------
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 1 ILRA 392
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1642 of 2011

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Luxmi Devi Dubey & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car and that there existed a proximate and
legally sustainable nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and his subsequent
death due to tetanus, thereby fastening liability upon the insurer to indemnify the awarded compensation.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - Liability of Insurance - Compensation of - In a claim arising
out of a motor accident dated 21.01.2008, the deceased sustained grievous injuries when his
motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending car, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent
manner - He was initially treated and discharged, but subsequently developed complications,
including tetanus, during continued medical treatment, and ultimately succumbed on 12.02.2008
- The claimants, being the legal heirs, instituted proceedings seeking compensation, which was
awarded by the Tribunal holding the driver negligent and fastening liability upon the insurer -
Aggrieved by the order, the insurer preferred an instant appeal before the High Court disputing
both the finding of negligence and the causal connection between the injuries sustained in the
accident and the subsequent death of the deceased. (E-11)

Held: It is well-settled that where there is a nexus between the injuries caused and the cause of death of
deceased, then certainly compensation can be awarded for the death of a person, who suffered injuries in a
motor accident - It is apparent that in the instant case, due to the accidental injuries suffered on 21.01.2008,
the deceased developed tetanus, which is incurable, and he died subsequently during treatment on 12-2-2008
- Had the deceased not suffered injuries in the accident for which he was operated upon, he certainly would
not have been infected with tetanus and would also not have died, due to it - As such, the contention of
appellant that there was no nexus between the injuries suffered in the accident and the cause of death of
deceased, is rejected - The tribunal has rightly held that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered in the
accident, and the accident was due to sole negligence of offending car driver - The contention of claimantsrespondents that the tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation cannot be examined in this appeal since
no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the claimants - Accordingly, the appeal has no merit,
thus, dismissed - Award of Tribunal is affirmed - Direction to pay remaining amount of compensation to
surviving legal heir. [Paras 16, 18 to 20]

Case Law Cited
Jayarathnamma and others v. Mukhtiar Singh and another 2005 SCC OnLine Kar 639; The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Malliga and others CMA No. 2835 of 2002 decided on 01.02.2008; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukhyarin and others 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 7750; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Anthony @ Rakesh and others 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 48 - referred to