# Satpal Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 600
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1241 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satpal-singh-v-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-48813
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections -168 & 171 : - Claimant's Appeal
for
enhancement
-
quantum
of
compensation - left leg of appellant was
amputed from his hip - Partial permanent
disability - determination of compensation
u/s 168 must be reasonable, just, fair,
equitable & accepted by legal standards -
Assessment of income by tribunal is
erroneous - Income reassessed by High
Court

-
Since
injured
would
be
incapacitated for lifetime, 40% must be
added for future loss of income - Age of
appellant was 27 years at the time of
accident - hence, multiplier should 17 be
applied - amount granted for pain, shock
and suffering enhanced - Omission to
grant any amount for future medical
expenses & procuring artificial limb was
erroneous
-
therefore,
compensation
awarded by the tribunal, enhanced as
from Rs. 3,64,160 with 9% rate of interest
to Rs. 15,80,000/- with 7.5% rate of
interest - Appeal is partly Allowed -
judgment of tribunal shall stand modified
accordingly. (Para -11, 31, 32, 33)

Appeal - partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Rs. 4 lacs, which shall be paid to him,
within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, by the
respondents. In the event, the compensation
awarded is not paid within a period of 90
days, the compensation awarded shall carry
interest at the rate of 9% per annum after
expiry of the period of 90 days from the
date of this judgment till realisation. Let the
lower court records be sent down to the
Tribunal, together with a certified copy of
this judgment passed by this Court.

20. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the General Manager,
Northern Railways, Baroda House, New
Delhi by the Senior Registrar.
----------
(2022)07ILR A600
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1241 of 2021

Satpal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sharve Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Agarawal

Civil Law- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections -168 & 171 : - Claimant's Appeal
for
enhancement
-
quantum
of
compensation - left leg of appellant was
amputed from his hip - Partial permanent
disability - determination of compensation
u/s 168 must be reasonable, just, fair,
equitable & accepted by legal standards -
Assessment of income by tribunal is
erroneous - Income reassessed by High
Court

-
Since
injured
would
be
incapacitated for lifetime, 40% must be
added for future loss of income - Age of
appellant was 27 years at the time of
accident - hence, multiplier should 17 be
applied - amount granted for pain, shock
and suffering enhanced - Omission to
grant any amount for future medical
expenses & procuring artificial limb was
erroneous
-
therefore,
compensation
awarded by the tribunal, enhanced as
from Rs. 3,64,160 with 9% rate of interest
to Rs. 15,80,000/- with 7.5% rate of
interest - Appeal is partly Allowed -
judgment of tribunal shall stand modified
accordingly. (Para -11, 31, 32, 33)

Appeal - partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Smt. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009 (6) SCC 121),

2. Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & anr. (2011 (1) SC
343),

3. Anthony Vs Managing Director KSRTC (2020
ACJ 1592),

4. Sanjay Verma Vs Haryana Roadways (2014
(3) SCC 210),

5. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand (2020 (0) AIJEL - SC
65725),

6. H. West & son Ltd. Vs Shephard 1963 (2)
WLR 1359),

7. Philips Vs Western Railway Company (1874) 4
QBD 406,

8. K Suresh Vs New India Assurance Company
Ltd. & ors.,

9. Sanjay Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar & anr. (2014
(5) SCC 330),

10. Syed Sadiq & ors. Vs D.M. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014 (2) SCC 735),
7 All. Satpal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
601
11. Vs Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr. (2019 (2)
TAC 718 (All.),

12. Jithendran Vs New India Assurance Com.
Ltd. & anr. (2021 ACJ 2736),

13. Lokkamma & ors. Vs The Reg. Manger M/s
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2021 SC
3301),

14. A V Padma Vs Venugopal, (2012 (1) GLH 6
SC 442),

15. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

16. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), (R/S Civil
Application
NO.
4800/2021
decided
on
05.04.2022.

17. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I.& ors., vide order dated
27.01.2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimant, challenges the judgment/award
dated
08.07.2002
and
decree
dated
22.07.2002 passed by Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal Agra/Additional District
Judge, Court No.11, Agra (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.147 of 2000 awarding a
sum of Rs.3,64,160/- with interest at the
rate of 9% as compensation.

3. The brief facts as culled out from
the
record
are
that
on
8.5.2000,
appellant/claimant Satpal Singh was going
from Delhi to Ghaziabad by Scooter No.
DL 5 S 4011 with Dharamveer Singh at
about 12 O'clock in the night when the
scooter reached at Mohan Nagar, Sales Tax
Check Post, a truck bearing UP 20 D 4827,
which was being driven very rashly and
negligently by its driver, came from behind
and hit the aforesaid Scooterist. The wheel
of the truck ran over the left leg (lower
limb) of the appellant. The applicant was
admitted to the nearest Hospital at Mohan
Nagar,
District
Ghaziabad
where
he
remained admitted from 9.3.2000 to
7.4.2000 and during his treatment his left
leg (lower limb) was amputed from the hip.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The
factum of negligence has attained finality.
The issue regarding the driver of the truck
having valid and effective driving licence
has also been decided by the tribunal in
favour of the appellant which is not
challenged in this appeal. Hence only the
issue of quantum of compensation is to be
looked into by us.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted
that
learned
Tribunal
has
assessed the income of the appellant at
Rs.1800/- per month (eighteen hundred
only) which is very meagre because the
appellant was aged 27 years old on date of
accident. The applicant was a TV Mechanic
and his income was not less then Rs.7,000/-
per month in the year of accident, but
learned Tribunal has equated his income
with labourer. It is further submitted by
learned counsel that no amount for future
loss of income is awarded by the tribunal.
Appellant was aged 27 years and he could
have progressed in life and his income
would have increased year by year, but
learned tribunal did not consider this fact.

6. It is next submitted by counsel for
the appellant that left leg of appellant was
amputed from the hip and as per medical
certificate, he has sustained permanent
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disability to the tune of 90%, but in fact the
appellant has become 100% disabled so his
permanent disability should be considered
at 100%. It is also submitted that tribunal
has applied multiplier of 14 while it should
have been 17 keeping in view age being 27
years. It is next submitted that tribunal has
awarded
a
very meagre
amount
of
Rs.5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering,
and no amount for future medicines, special
diet and attendant charges, etc., have been
awarded, learned Tribunal is not considered
the loss of amenities.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submitted that the income of the
appellant was not be proved, he was
Mechanic, but he has failed to prove his
monthly income to be Rs.7,000/- per month.
Hence, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed
his monthly income at Rs.1800/- per month.
It is next submitted by learned counsel that as
per medical certificate, the permanent
disability of the appellant was found to the
tune of 90% and learned Tribunal has also
considered 90% it cannot be 100%. Learned
counsel for Insurance Company very fairly
submitted that the multiplier should be in
accordance with judgment of Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121. It is also submitted that there is no
evidence on record that appellant suffered
any future loss of income. The amount under
non pecuniary heads has been fairly awarded
by the tribunal. It is submitted that Tribunal
has awarded compensation with 9% rate of
interest which is on higher side.

8. This is the case where a 27 year old
man has lost his one limb from the hip joint
on account of injuries sustained in road
accident but the learned tribunal has
awarded total compensation of Rs.3,64,160/-
which
cannot
be
said
to
be
just
compensation.

9. This is a case of injury which is
very grave in nature. The wheel of the truck
ran over the left leg of the appellant and
during treatment his left leg was imputed
from the hip joint which made him in
capacitated from pursuing in good career in
life though he was a TV Mechanic at the
time of accident. He is not able to walk, run
or even seat properly. He has lost amenities
and pleasure of life it can safely be
assumed that he had bleak prospects of
marriage and family life. He is not able to
live the normal life, his disability which is
to the tune of 90% is permanent in nature,
his normalacy of life can't be restored as it
was before the accident, but Court should
provide "just compensation".

10. We have to keep in mind all the
factors which are relevant for just and
proper compensation as is the object of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the
Act of 1988').

11. Section 168 of the Act, 1988,
contemplates
determination
of
'just
compensation'. 'Just' means-fair, reasonable
and equitable amount accepted by legal
standards. 'Just compensation' does not
mean perfect or absolute compensation.
'Just
compensation'
principle
requires
examination
of
particular
situation
obtaining uniquely in individual case.
When compensation is to be determined on
an application under Section 166 of the
Act, 1988, various heads under which
damages are to be assessed, have to be
looked into by Tribunal.

12. The question of determination of
compensation for injured directly came up
before Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar and another, 2011(1) SCC
343 and Anthony v. Managing Director,
K.S.R.T.C. 2020 ACJ 1592 relied by
7 All. Satpal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
603
applicant's
counsel.
Therein,
claimant
sustained fracture of both bone of left leg
and fracture of left radius in a motor
accident on 01.10.1991. Tribunal awarded
compensation under the heads of loss of
future earning, pain and sufferings, loss of
earning during period of treatment, medical
expenses, conveyance and special diet. He
was awarded total compensation of Rs.
94,700/- and 9% interest. His appeal for
enhancement was rejected by Tribunal and
ultimately went in appeal to Supreme
Court. It observed that scheme of Act, 1988
shows that award must be "just", which
means that compensation should, to the
extent possible, fully and adequately
restore claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages
is to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so,
in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
A person is not only to be compensated for
physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. It
means that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries,
and his inability to earn as much as he used
to earn or could have earned. The heads
under which compensation needs be
awarded in "personal injury" cases are
detailed in para 6 of the judgment titled Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and it reads
as under:

"6. The heads under which
compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary
damages
(Special
Damages)

(i)
Expenses
relating
to
treatment,
hospitalization,
medicines,
transportation,
nourishing
food,
and
miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other
gains) which the injured would have made
had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the
period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General
Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering
and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating
the
evidence
of
the
claimant,
that
compensation will be granted under any of
the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating
to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent
disability,
future
medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life."

13. "Disability" refers to any
restriction or lack of ability to perform an
activity in the manner considered normal
for a human-being. "Permanent disability"
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found
existing at the end of period of treatment
and recuperation, after achieving maximum
bodily improvement or recovery which is
likely to remain for remainder life of
injured. Permanent disability can be either
partial
or
total.
"Partial
permanent
disability" refers to a person's inability to
perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them
and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. "Total permanent disability" refers
to a person's inability to perform any
avocation or employment related activities
as a result of the accident.

14. The percentage of disability
certified in medical terms has been
considered and Courts have observed that
percentage of disability in respect of a part
of body does not mean the same percentage
with respect to whole body and it may be
different. Para 9 of judgment in Raj Kumar
Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) said as under:

"9. The percentage of permanent
disability is expressed by the Doctors with
reference to the whole body, or more often
than not, with reference to a particular
limb. When a disability certificate states
that the injured has suffered permanent
disability to an extent of 45% of the left
lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the
whole body. The extent of disability of a
limb (or part of the body) expressed in
terms of a percentage of the total functions
of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed
to be the extent of disability of the whole
body. If there is 60% permanent disability
of the right hand and 80% permanent
disability of left leg, it does not mean that
the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that
is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the
body have suffered different percentages of
disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed
in terms of the permanent disability with
reference to the whole body, cannot
obviously exceed 100%."

(emphasis added)

15. Court also castigated that
Tribunals wrongly assume that percentage
of permanent disability is same in terms of
percentage of loss of future earning
capacity. The two aspects are different.
Relevant observations in para 10 of the
judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
(supra) are reproduced 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, percentage of loss of
earning capacity, arising from a permanent
disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some
Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases,
a
particular
extent
(percentage)
of
permanent disability would result in a
corresponding loss of earning capacity,
and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will
hold that there is 45% loss of future
earning capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of
earning capacity to the extent (percentage)
of permanent disability will result in award
7 All. Satpal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
605
of
either
too
low or
too
high a
compensation."

(emphasis added)

16. Court also held that in some cases
evidence and assessment may show that
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a
result
of
permanent
disability
is
approximately the same as percentage of
permanent disability and in that case said
percentage
for
determination
of
compensation may be adopted but it is not
always. It is in this context Court further
said that in order to determine, whether
there is any permanent disability and if so
the extent of such disability, a Tribunal
should consider, and decide, with reference
to evidence:

"(i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary;

(ii)
if
the
disablement
is
permanent, whether it is permanent total
disablement
or
permanent
partial
disablement;

(iii) if the disablement percentage
is expressed with reference to any specific
limb, then the effect of such disablement of
the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is the permanent disability
suffered by the person."

17. It was also observed that
ascertainment of the effect of permanent
disability on actual earning capacity involves
three steps. First is to ascertain what activities
claimant could carry on in spite of permanent
disability and what he could not do as a result
of permanent disability. The second is to
ascertain claimant's avocation, profession and
nature of work before accident, as also his age.
The third step is to find out whether claimant
is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood or despite permanent disability,
claimant could still effectively carry on
activities and functions, which he was earlier
carrying on and whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on
some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.

18. The role of Tribunal was elaborately
discussed by observing that it is not a silent
spectator when medical evidence is tendered
in regard to the injuries and their effect, in
particular the extent of permanent disability.
Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire
as in a civil suit. It is an active explorer and
seeker of truth who is required to hold an
enquiry into the claim for determining 'just
compensation'. Tribunal should take an active
role to ascertain the true and correct position
so that it can assess 'just compensation'. Court
also observed that when a doctor gives
evidence about percentage of permanent
disability, Tribunal must find out whether such
percentage of disability is functional disability
with reference to whole body or whether it is
only with reference to a limb. In para 19 of the
judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
(supra) Court summarized the principles in
respect
of
"permanent
disability"
and
assessment of compensation and in para 20 it
gives certain illustrations in regard to
assessment of loss of future earning. Same are
reproduced as under:

"19. We may now summarize the
principles discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent
disabilities arising from injuries), do not
result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent
disability with reference to the whole body
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To
put it differently, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except
in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the
basis
of
evidence,
concludes
that
percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as percentage of permanent
disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an
injured-claimant or who examined him
subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only
in
regard
the
extent
of
permanent
disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by
the Tribunal with reference to the evidence
in entirety.

(iv)
The
same
permanent
disability
may
result
in
different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in
different persons, depending upon the
nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors."

19. A three Judge Bench considered
the question of "just compensation" in a
case of permanent disability in Sanjay
Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2014(3)
SCC 210. Court observed that besides
determination of damages under the head
"loss of income" and "medical expenses",
Tribunal must also award compensation
under the head "future treatment" and "pain
and sufferings"
and where there
is
requirement of an attendant, cost of
attendant should also be included for award
of compensation.

20. In Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand
reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725, the
Apex
Court
has
quoted
pertinent
observations from a very old case Philips
Vs. Western Railway Company (1874)
4QBD 406 as under:

"You cannot put the plaintiff back
again into his original position, but you
must bring your reasonable common sense
to bear, and you must always recollect that
this is the only occasion on which
compensation can be given. The plaintiff
can never sue again for it. You have,
therefore, now to give him compensation
once and for all. He has done no wrong, he
has suffered a wrong at the hands of the
defendants and you must take care to give
him full fair compensation for that which
he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals
should always remember that the measures
of damages in all these cases "should be
such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say
that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure."

21. Hon'ble Apex Court has further
quoted pertinent observations from H. West
& Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1963 2 WLR 1359
as under:

"Money may be awarded so that
something tangible may be procured to
replace something else of the like nature
which has been destroyed or lost. But
money cannot renew a physical frame that
has been battered and shattered. All that
Judges and courts can do is to award sums
which
must
be
regarded
as
giving
reasonable compensation. In the process
there must be the endeavour to secure some
uniformity in the general method of
approach. By common assent awards must
be reasonable and must be assessed with
moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently
desirable
that
so
far
as
possible
comparable
injuries
should
be
compensated by comparable awards.
7 All. Satpal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
607

In the same case Lord Devlin
observed that the proper approach to the
problem was to adopt a test as to what
contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the
wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval
that he has done the fair thing", which
should be kept in mind by the court in
determining compensation in personal
injury cases."

22. Section 168 of MV Act stipulates
that there should be grant of just
compensation. Thus, it becomes challenge
for a Court of law to determine just
compensation which should not be bonanza
for the claimant/victim and at the same
time it should not be too meagre. Hon'ble
the Apex Court in Rajkumar Vs Ajay
Kumar and others (2011) 1 SCC 343 has
laid
down
the
heads
under
which
compensation is to be awarded for personal
injuries which is as follows:

"Pecuniary
damages
(Special
damages)

(i)Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing
food,
and
miscellaneous
expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other
gains) which the injured would have made
had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the
period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General
damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering
and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is
specific medical evidence corroborating
the
evidence
of
the
claimant,
that
compensation will be granted under any of
the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating
to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent
disability,
future
medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.

23. In K. Suresh v. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors.,
Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as follows
:

"2...There
cannot
be
actual
compensation for anguish of the heart or
for
mental
tribulations.
The
quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which
has to be in the realm of realistic
approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
the Act) stipulates that there should be
grant of just compensation. Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to
determine just compensation which is
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance."

24. Hence, keeping in mind the above
contours of "just compensation", we proceed
to determine the quantum of compensation. It
is not disputed that appellant has submitted
the bills for medical expenses and treatment
worth Rs.87,000/-. As far as disability of the
appellant is concerned, Doctors have issued
disability certificate to the tune of 90% for
body as a whole and the Tribunal has also
considered the same percentage. Hence, we
do not disturb the percentage of permanent
disability.

25. Perusal of judgment shows that
despite holding that the appellant was a T.V.
Mechanic,
the
learned
Tribunal
has
considered his monthly income at Rs.1800/-
on the ground that he could not adduce any
evidence in this regard. We are even fortified
in our view by the following authoritative
pronouncements.

(i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok
Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330;

(ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs.
Divisional
Manager,
United
India
Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2
SCC 735;

(iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi
and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and

(iv) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and
others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.).

(v)
Uttar
Pradesh
Motor
Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules,
2011.

26. Learned tribunal has assessed
income at Rs.1800/- per month of injured
appellant on the basis of The Minimum
Wages Act, the said finding is bad. Learned
tribunal could not have equated the
appellant with labourer because before
learned tribunal the appellant led evidence
and opined that he was a T.V. Mechanic
meaning thereby, that he was a technical
and skilled person. The accident took place
in the year of 2000, hence, we hold the
income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- per
month.

27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment of Jithendran v. New India
Assurance Company Ltd and another,
2021 ACJ 2736 has held that in case of
injury, 40% would be added towards future
prospects, considering the fact that injured
would be incapacitated for life, the same
would be applicable to the facts of this
Case.

28. Keeping in view the aforesaid
decisions 40% would be added for future
loss of income of the appellant, it is the
result of his permanent disability and that
too to the tune of 90%. The age of
appellant was 27 years at the time of
accident, hence, multiplier of 17 shall be
applied, Rs.87,000/- were spent on medical
expenses which are rightly granted by the
tribunal. Learned tribunal has granted a
meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- for pain and
suffering. This is a case of amputation of
one leg, hence Rs.1,00,000/- is granted for
pain, shock and suffering as held by the
Apex Court in Syed Sadiq Etc. Vs.
Divisional
Manager
United
India
Insurance Company Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC
735. Learned tribunal has not granted any
amount for future medical expenses hence,
we grant Rs.40,000/- for future medicines,
Rs.10,000/- (lumps sum) for special diet
and Rs.5,000/- for attendant charges are
also granted.
7 All. Satpal Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
609

29. We can take judicial notice of the
fact that in some of the cases, the injured as
the case in hand requires artificial limb for
betterment in movement, where leg is
amputated. Purpose of social welfare
legislation is to find out ways and means to
help the sufferer in all possible fields. If
Tribunal finds with medical advice that
artificial limb can procure his selfdependency, all possible efforts should be
made to get it executed and whatever
necessary expenses, it requires, must be
treated to be a part of compensation, which
should be allowed against the persons
liable to pay compensation. Hence, the
appellant
would
be
entitled
to
get
Rs.1,00,000/- for procuring artificial limb.

30. Where the appellant has become
disabled to the tune of 90% and that too by
his leg, he is not able to seat properly and
walk and he has lost pleasures of life
because he cannot live a normal life after
the accident. It is natural that he had bleak
prospects of marriage and family life as he
was a young man of 27 years of age only. It
cannot be said that appellant lost amenities
of life to the great extent which cannot be
restored
at
all,
therefore,
we
grant
Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of amenities. On the
basis of above discussion, the amount of
compensation payable to the appellant is
computed herein-below.

31. On the basis of above discussions,
the amount of compensation payable to the
appellant is computed herein-below.

i. Annual Income : Rs.4,000/-
p.m.

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% which would be Rs.1600/-

iii. Total income (i+ii) : Rs.5600/-

iv. Annual Income : Rs.5600 x 12
= 67,200/-

v. Multiplier applicable : 17

vi.
Loss
of
dependency:
(Rs.67,200 x 17)=Rs.11,42,400/-

vii. Permanent disability at the
rate of 90% = Rs.10,28,000/- (rounded
figure)

viii.
Medical
expenses
=
Rs.87,000/-

ix.
For
Artificial
limb
=
Rs.1,00,000/-

x. For loss of amenities :
Rs.2,00,000/-

xi. For Special diet : Rs.10,000/-

xii. For attendant charges =
Rs.5,000/-

xiii. For future medicines =
Rs.40,000/-

xiv. For transportation expenses =
Rs.10,000/-

xv. For pain, shock and suffering
: Rs.1,00,000/-

xvi.
Total
compensation
(vii+viii+ix+x+xi+xii+xiii+xiv+xv)
:
Rs.15,80,000/- (in rounded figure)

32. The tribunal has awarded the rate
of interest @ 9% but as far as issue of rate
of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5%
in view of the latest decision of the Apex
Court in National 7 Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2)
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court
has held as under :

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

33. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
additional amount within a period of 12
weeks from today with interest at the rate
of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited.
However, for period of 22.7.2002 to
17.12.2003 no interest would be payable in
view of decision of Apex Court reported in
Lakkamma and Others Vs. The Regional
Manager M/s United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 3301. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

34. Learned Tribunal has awarded
rate of interest as 9% per annum but we are
award of interest at 7.5% on the enhanced
amount in the light of the above judgment
of the Apex Court.

35. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH 6 (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate nor rustic
villagers.

36. Fresh Award be drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made herein.
The Tribunals in the State shall follow the
direction
of
this
Court
as
herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the matter
and judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The
same is to be applied looking to the facts of
each case.

37. No other grounds were urged when
the matters were heard.

38. Recently the Gujarat High Court in
case titled the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(TDS), R/Special Civil Application No.4800
of 2021 decided on 05.04.2022, it is held
that interest awarded by the tribunal under
Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act is not
taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

39. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others
vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose
of keeping compensation is to safeguard the
interest of the claimants. As 10 years have
elapsed, the amount be deposited in the
Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized
Bank without F.D.R.

40. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisting
7 All. Mushtaq Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Sri Riyaz Khan & Ors.
611
this court in getting this old appeal
disposed of.

41. Record be sent back to tribunal
below forthwith.
----------
(2022)07ILR A611
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022 &
13.07.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1877 of 2008

Mushtaq Ahmad & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Riyaz Khan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ms. Anju Shukla, Sri Nigamendra Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour, A.K. Sinha,
Sri Amitanshu Gour

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 140, 163, 163-A & 166 - Appeal -
for
enhancement
of
compensation
-
Negligence - after evidence was led -
tribunal recast the issues and decided
claim petition u/s 166 not u/s 163-A -
once the tribunal decided the matter u/s
166 by deciding the issue of negligence, it
was under an obligation to decide the
future loss of income also - hence, Court
granted addition of 40% towards future
loss of income. (Para - 8)

(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections 140, 163, 163-A & 166- Appeal -
quantum of compensation - Multiplier of
18 should be applied instead of 15 as
deceased was in age bracket of 21 - 25 as
well as per law lay down in Kurvan Ansari
Alias Kurvan Ali's case Rs. 40,000/- each
to the parents be granted & deduction
towards
personal
expenses
of
the
deceased would be 1⁄2 as deceased was
bachelor. (Para 9)

(C) CIVIL LAW - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Sections -140, 163, 163-A & 166-
Appeal - quantum of compensation - rate
of interest - in the light of Hon'ble Apex
court Judgment & order rendered in
'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal &
ors.' Case - rate of interest should be 7.5%
(Para 10)

(D) CIVIL LAW - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Section - 166: - Income Tax Act, 1961
Section - 194- A(3)(ix): - Appeal - Tax
deduction - in the light of judgment of
Hon'ble Apex court in case of 'Smt.
Hansaguri P. Ladhani's case - insurance
company
is
entitled
to
deduct
the
appropriate amount under the head of
'TDS' accordingly - directions are also
issued to the tribunal to follow the
guidelines issued in case of 'Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Com. Pvt. Ld. Vs UOI & ors.'.
(Para 13)

Appeal - Allowed Judgement of tribunal
shall stand modified to the aforesaid
extent. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali Vs Shyam Kishore
Murmu (2021 (0) AIJEL - SC - 67995).

2. National Insruance Co. Ltd. Vs Mannat Johal
& ors. (2019 (2) TAC 705 (SC),

3. A V Padma Vs Venugopal (2012 (12) GLH
(SC) 442,

4. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007 (2) GLH 291,

5. FAFO No. 23/2001 (Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs
Hari Sigh & anr.),

6. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), (R/Special