# Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors v. Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 899
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1523 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-devi-ors-v-sri-ram-general-insurance-com-ltd-ors-52597
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Vijay Prakash Mishra, Vijai Prakash Misra

Issue for Consideration
Whether
the
claimants
were
entitled
to
enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, particularly with
regard to
(i) assessment of monthly income of the
deceased, who was a professional driver, in
absence of documentary proof; and
(ii)
quantum
of
compensation
under
conventional heads, in light of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court.
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.173 - Motor
accident - Enhancement of compensation
- Assessment of income - Professional
driver - Skilled workman - Minimum
wages - Future prospects - Conventional
heads - Consortium - Loss of estate -
Funeral expenses - Redetermination of
compensation.

Held:
The deceased was a professional driver, who
was himself driving a DCM truck at the time of
the accident. Though the claimants asserted
that he was earning ₹12,000/- per month, no
documentary evidence was produced in support
thereof. In such circumstances, the Tribunal
assessed the income at ₹6,000/- per month.
[Paras 1, 7]

The High Court held that, since the deceased
was a skilled workman, his income, in absence
of documentary proof, was liable to be assessed
on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled
worker prevailing at the time of the accident.
The minimum wages applicable were ₹8,397/-
per month, and the income was accordingly
reassessed. [Para 7]

Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme
Court, the Court reiterated that notifications
under the Minimum Wages Act can be used as a
guiding factor where there is no positive
evidence regarding income, and that a balanced
and reasonable approach is required in such
cases. [Paras 5-7]

The Court further held that the claimants were
entitled to future prospects at the rate of 50%,
since the deceased was below 40 years of age,
and recalculated the loss of dependency by
applying the appropriate multiplier. [Paras 8-10]

With respect to conventional heads, the Court
held
that
compensation
towards
loss
of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses
was liable to be enhanced in accordance with
the principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench and subsequent decisions of the Supreme
Court, including periodic enhancement. [Paras
8-10]
Accordingly, the total compensation payable to
the claimants was redetermined at ₹23,34,055/-
, as against ₹14,12,400/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and the
award of the Tribunal was modified to the above
extent, with interest. [Paras 10-12]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Gurpreet Kaur and Others v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1778 - relied on; Jitendra v. Sadiya
and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 261 - relied
on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 - relied on;
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018)
18 SCC 130 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998.

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Enhancement of compensation;
Professional driver; Skilled workman; Minimum
wages; Future prospects; Loss of dependency;
Consortium; Conventional heads; First appeal
from order.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 23.07.2018, as
corrected on 01.09.2018, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District
Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad in MACP No.
412 of 2016 (Smt. Geeta Devi and Others v.
Chintamani Yadav and Others).

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Sri
Atul Kumar Dubey
For the Respondent: Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra,
Sri Vijai Prakash Misra

## Text

10 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. & Ors.
899
27. On perusing the case diary and
the aforesaid statement of Smt. Garima
Rani, it appears that there was no mention
of any allegation regarding molestation by
the opposite party no. 2 in F.I.R. but during
the course of investigation her statements
were recorded four times by the I.O. and
even after interval of time there was no
whisper regarding such charge. Fourth
statement was recorded which she brought
in writing before the I.O., so it can not be
said that it was made in haste and under
any distress but it was willful and
thoughtful. In her fifth statement which was
recorded on 22.03.2023 she made such
statement. Till the recording of fifth
statement she kept mum in this regard. Her
Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
recorded subsequent to her fifth statement.

28. So far as the chatting record is
concerned it contains no any such material
indicating that there was some affair
between opposite party no. 2 and Smt.
Garima. On the basis of chatting record it
cannot be said that she was so molested by
him.
29. In view of the law as
enumerated above for discharge in context
with the statements of the victim in the
present case, the nature of such statements
seems to give rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion and unless it is grave
suspicion, the accused cannot be put to face
the trial for such allegations and the learned
trial court will be right to discharge the
accused.

30. The learned trial court while
passing the order on discharge application
dated 17.05.2024 has considered all these
facts and the material on record collected
during the course of investigation and
recorded its finding while discharging the
opposite party no. 2 for the offence under
Section 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii),
354(D) I.P.C. and directing him to be tried
under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. for
murder of the deceased child by burning in
his house and for hiding and destroying the
evidence. There appears no any illegality or
impropriety in the order passed by the
learned trial court in discharging the
opposite party no. 2 for the offences as
aforesaid but this criminal revision being
devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

31. Accordingly, this criminal
revision is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 899
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1523 of 2019

Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Amit Kumar Sinha, Atul Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vijay Prakash Mishra, Vijai Prakash Misra

Issue for Consideration
Whether
the
claimants
were
entitled
to
enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, particularly with
regard to
(i) assessment of monthly income of the
deceased, who was a professional driver, in
absence of documentary proof; and
(ii)
quantum
of
compensation
under
conventional heads, in light of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court.
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.173 - Motor
accident - Enhancement of compensation
- Assessment of income - Professional
driver - Skilled workman - Minimum
wages - Future prospects - Conventional
heads - Consortium - Loss of estate -
Funeral expenses - Redetermination of
compensation.

Held:
The deceased was a professional driver, who
was himself driving a DCM truck at the time of
the accident. Though the claimants asserted
that he was earning ₹12,000/- per month, no
documentary evidence was produced in support
thereof. In such circumstances, the Tribunal
assessed the income at ₹6,000/- per month.
[Paras 1, 7]

The High Court held that, since the deceased
was a skilled workman, his income, in absence
of documentary proof, was liable to be assessed
on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled
worker prevailing at the time of the accident.
The minimum wages applicable were ₹8,397/-
per month, and the income was accordingly
reassessed. [Para 7]

Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme
Court, the Court reiterated that notifications
under the Minimum Wages Act can be used as a
guiding factor where there is no positive
evidence regarding income, and that a balanced
and reasonable approach is required in such
cases. [Paras 5-7]

The Court further held that the claimants were
entitled to future prospects at the rate of 50%,
since the deceased was below 40 years of age,
and recalculated the loss of dependency by
applying the appropriate multiplier. [Paras 8-10]

With respect to conventional heads, the Court
held
that
compensation
towards
loss
of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses
was liable to be enhanced in accordance with
the principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench and subsequent decisions of the Supreme
Court, including periodic enhancement. [Paras
8-10]
Accordingly, the total compensation payable to
the claimants was redetermined at ₹23,34,055/-
, as against ₹14,12,400/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and the
award of the Tribunal was modified to the above
extent, with interest. [Paras 10-12]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Gurpreet Kaur and Others v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1778 - relied on; Jitendra v. Sadiya
and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 261 - relied
on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 - relied on;
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018)
18 SCC 130 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1998.

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Enhancement of compensation;
Professional driver; Skilled workman; Minimum
wages; Future prospects; Loss of dependency;
Consortium; Conventional heads; First appeal
from order.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 23.07.2018, as
corrected on 01.09.2018, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District
Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad in MACP No.
412 of 2016 (Smt. Geeta Devi and Others v.
Chintamani Yadav and Others).

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Sri
Atul Kumar Dubey
For the Respondent: Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra,
Sri Vijai Prakash Misra

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

1. The instant appeal for enhancement
of compensation under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the claimants against the
impugned judgment and award dated
23.07.2018 as corrected on 01.09.2018
10 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. & Ors.
901
passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.10,Allahabad, in MACP No.412 of
2016,
Smt.Geeta
Devi
&
Ors
vs.
Chintamani Yadav & others, whereby
compensation of Rs.14,12,400/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded
to the claimants(legal representatives of
deceased), for the untimely death of
Nathulal Yadav due to injuries suffered by
him in an accident which occurred on
28.02.2016, which has been ordered to be
indemnified by the insurer(Shri Ram
General
Insurance
Co.Ltd.)
of
the
offending Truck No.UP-70-DT-3749.

2.
Learned
counsel
for
the
claimant-appellants submitted that the
tribunal has awarded less amount of
compensation because the deceased was a
professional driver who was driving DCM
truck No.UP-73A-1763 at the time of the
accident as such, his income should have
been assessed on the basis of minimum
wages of skilled workman prevailing at that
time. Learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that the tribunal has
awarded less amount of compensation
towards the conventional heads whereas,
the claimants are entitled to get enhanced
compensation under these heads in light of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Pranay
Sethi & Ors.(2017)16 SCC 680.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for
the
respondent
insurance
company
submitted that the tribunal has awarded the
right amount of compensation to the
claimants.
4. I have heard the learned counsel
of both the sides and perused the record of
the lower court.
5. The Apex Court in the case of
Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1778, held as under:-

 "8. Though, there is no evidence
on record regarding the income of
deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the
testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar,
Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited, it is clear that the deceased -
Pyara Singh was regularly making the
payment of Rs. 11,550/- as instalment to
discharge his loan liability towards the
tractor. At this rate, the entire loan was
paid back within a year or so. That clearly
establishes the earning capacity of the
deceased. It is also the case of the
appellants-claimants that the deceased was
working as a contractor and was earning
Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Tribunal
adopted a balanced approach and keeping
in view factors like : (i) the payment of
monthly instalment of Rs. 11,550/- towards
loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a
family comprising of wife, two minor
children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor
and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was
working as a contractor; assessed his
income at Rs. 25,000/- per month.

 9. In our considered view, the
Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law
as well as on facts. In the summary
proceedings where the approach of the
Tribunal's
determination
must
be
in
conformity with the object of the welfare
legislation, it was rightly held that the
monthly income of the deceased could not
be less than Rs. 25,000/-. The reason
assigned by the High Court to reduce the
monthly income of the deceased is totally
cryptic
and
has
no
rationale.
The
Notification of Minimum Wages Act can
be a guiding factor only in a case where
there is no clue available to evaluate
monthly income of the deceased. Where
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
positive evidence has been led, no reliance
on the Notification could be placed,
particularly when it was nobody's case
that the deceased was a labourer as
presumed by the High Court."

(emphasis supplied)

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Jitendra vs. Sadiya & Others 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 261, held as under:-
 "10. We have heard the learned
counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to
agree with the view taken by the Tribunal
and High Court on the income of the
Appellant and the functional disability
suffered by him. At the outset, we must
refer to the exposition of this Court in
Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance
Company Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778.,
wherein it was stated the notifications
under the Minimum Wages Act can be a
guiding factor in cases where there is no
evidence available to evaluate monthly
income."
7. The claimants claimed that the
deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per
month but since the claimants failed to
prove
that
income
by
submitting
documentary evidence before the tribunal
as such, the tribunal assessed his monthly
income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Since, the
deceased was a professional driver, who
was himself driving DCM truck No.UP73A-1763 at the time of the accident and
who died in that accident as such, he falls
in the category of skilled workman and in
the absence of any documentary evidence
of the income, his income is liable to be
assessed on the basis of minimum wages of
a skilled workman prevailing at the time of
the accident, which was Rs.8,397/- per
month.
8. The Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680 has awarded loss
of
consortium
of
Rs.40,000/-
and
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses, which is to be enhanced
at the rate of 10% after every three years.

9. The Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others,
(2018)
18
SCC
130,
has
awarded
Rs.40,000/-
each
towards
spousal
consortium, parental consortium and filial
consortium.

10. In view of the above legal
position, the compensation payable to the
claimants is redetermined as under:-

S.
No
.

Compen
sation
Heads

Amount
Awarded in
Rs.

In
Accor
dance
with.

1.
Monthly
income
of
deceased
(as per
the
minimu
m wages
of skilled
workman
)
8,397/-

Gurpre
et Kaur
(supra)
&
Jitendr
a
(supra)

2.
Annual
Income
of
deceased

8,397X12=1,00
,764/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)

3.
Less
1/5th
deductio
n
towards
20,153/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)
10 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. & Ors.
903
self
expenses
(since
number
of
depende
nts is 10)

4.
Net
annual
income
on which
claimant
s were
depende
nt

80,611/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)

5.
Add
future
prospects
@50%
since
deceased
was aged
less than
40 years

40,306/-

Rule
220-A
of UP
Motor
Vehicl
e
Rules,1
998

6.
Total
annual
depende
ncy of
claimant
s on
deceased

1,20,917/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)

7.
Multiplie
r applied
since age
of
deceased
was
about 39
years
15
Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)

8.
Total
loss of
1,20,917X15=1
8,13,755/-
Pranay
Sethi(s
depende
ncy to
the
claimant
s

upra)

9.
Loss of
consortiu
m
@Rs.40,
000/-
each,
increased
by 10%
after
every 3
years(10
depende
nts)

48,400X10=4,8
4,000/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)
and
Magm
a
Genera
l
Insura
nce
Co.
Ltd.
(supra)

10.
Loss of
estate @
Rs.15,00
0/-
increased
by 10%
after
every 3
years.

18,150/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)

11.
Funeral
Expenses
@
Rs.15,00
0/-
increased
by 10%
after
every 3
years.

18,150/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)

12.
Total
compens
23,34,055/-

Pranay
Sethi(s
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ation
upra)

11. In this way, the claimants are
entitled
to
total
compensation
of
Rs.23,34,055/- alongwith interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till it?s actual payment,
which is to be indemnified by the insurer of
the offending Truck No.UP-70-DT-3749.

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

13. 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 one month. The tribunal will be at
liberty
to
proportionally
award
the
enhanced amount of compensation to the
claimants, keeping in view their age and
dependency.

14. The original record of the lower
court
be
sent
back,
forthwith.
Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 904
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1790 of 2025

Pramod Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sheeshram & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Abhishek Gupta, Chandra Bhan Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in directing
the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fees on
the market value of the disputed property for
the relief of cancellation / declaration of sale
deeds, without first determining the market
value of the property on the date of institution
of the suit and without examining whether the
plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title were
parties to the sale deeds, as required under
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (U.P.
Amendment).

Headnotes
Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in U.P.)
- s.7(iv-A); Sch. II, Art.17(iii) - Suit for
declaration - Cancellation / adjudging
void sale deeds - Valuation of relief -
Market value - Party or non-party to
instrument
-
One-fifth
valuation
-
Determination of market value - Duty of
Trial Court - Remand.

Held:
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (U.P.
Amendment) governs suits for or involving
cancellation or adjudging void or voidable
instruments securing property having market
value. Where the plaintiff or his predecessor-intitle was a party to the instrument, court fees
are payable on the full value of the subjectmatter; where he was not a party, court fees are
payable on one-fifth of the value of the subjectmatter. [Paras 6, 11]

Article 17(iii) of Schedule II applies only to
declaratory suits not otherwise provided for. In
view of the specific provision contained in
Section 7(iv-A), Article 17(iii) has no application
to suits involving cancellation of sale deeds
having market value. [Paras 11-12]

The value of the subject-matter for purposes of
Section 7(iv-A) is the market value of the
property on the date of filing of the suit, and not
merely the consideration mentioned in the sale
deeds. Determination of such market value is a