# Smt. Kashmiri & Ors v. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1395
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-13
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 2841 of 2016
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kashmiri-ors-v-u-p-s-r-t-c-anr-54046
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1 All. Smt. Kashmiri & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
1395
(2026) 1 ILRA 1395
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

FAFO No. 2841 of 2016

Smt. Kashmiri & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement with respect to (i) determination
of income of the deceased in absence of documentary proof, (ii) grant of future prospects, (iii) deduction
towards personal expenses, (iv) application of correct multiplier, and (v) non-pecuniary heads.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Determination of income - Absence of
documentary proof - Minimum wages:

Held: Where no documentary evidence of income is produced, the Tribunal is required to assess income on
the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevailing at the relevant time - Assessment of notional
income at Rs.15,000/- per annum was grossly inadequate - The income of the deceased was liable to be
determined on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the State. [Paras 12-14]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Deceased below 40 years:

Held: In terms of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, where the deceased was below 40 years
of age, addition of 50% towards future prospects is mandatory - The Tribunal erred in not awarding any
compensation under this head. [Paras 15, 19]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Deduction towards personal expenses - Bachelor
- Large dependent family:

Held: Although ordinarily 50% deduction is made in case of a bachelor, where the deceased was the sole
bread-earner of a large dependent family, deduction towards personal expenses may be restricted to one-third
- The remaining two-third income is to be treated as contribution to the family. [Paras 21-23]

Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Compensation
-
Multiplier
-
Age
of
deceased:
Held: The deceased being about 22 years of age at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable
was 18 - The Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 16, resulting in under-assessment of compensation.
[Para 19]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Non-pecuniary heads - Consortium -
Enhancement:

Held: The claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads including consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses in accordance with settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court - The
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount awarded by the Tribunal under these heads was inadequate and required enhancement. [Paras 1620]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal - Enhancement of compensation - Re-determination:
Held: Upon proper determination of income, addition of future prospects, appropriate deduction towards
personal expenses, application of correct multiplier and enhancement under non-pecuniary heads, the
compensation payable to the claimants was liable to be substantially enhanced - The award of the Tribunal
was modified accordingly. [Paras 24-26]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 - relied on; Jitendra
v. Sadiya, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 261 - relied on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680 - relied on; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC
130 - relied on; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav, (2023) 13 SCC 334 - relied
on; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 - relied on

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (Rule 220-A)

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Compensation; Minimum wages; Notional income; Future prospects; Bachelor; Personal
expenses; Multiplier; Consortium; Enhancement.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Court No.7, Bulandshahr in MACP No. 266 of 2014.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Nigamendra Shukla
For the Respondents: Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav.

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

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of
compensation has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated
30.04.2016 passed by Shri. Sunil Kumar, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, court no.7, Bulandshahr, in MACP No.266 of 2014 (Smt. Kashmiri Devi and others vs.
U.P.S.R.T.C. and another), whereby, for the untimely death of Ankit in a road accident which
occurred on 10.06.2014, a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum has been awarded to the claimants(mother,sister and brothers), which has been ordered to be
indemnified by the owner U.P.S.R.T.C. of the offending Bus No. UP-15AT-4097.

3. Since no cross appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, as
such, the factum of accident and negligence of offending driver is not disputed by the respondents.
1 All. Smt. Kashmiri & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
1397

4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that deceased Ankit was a bachelor
aged about 22 years at the time of accident, who was a labourer earning about Rs.9,000/- per month
on which claimants were dependent, but the tribunal has assessed the notional income of the
deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is grossly inadequate. It was further submitted that
claimants were also entitled to get compensation for future prospects of the deceased @50%, but
the tribunal has not awarded any compensation on this account, which is erroneous. It was further
submitted that the tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under non pecuniary heads. It
was further submitted that keeping in view the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 18 was to be
applied for assessing the compensation but the tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16, which
requires enhancement.

5. It was further submitted that since the father of the deceased had already died before the
accident, the claimants were entirely dependent on the deceased, as such, only 1/3rd amount should
be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

6. With these submissions it was prayed that appeal be allowed and enhanced compensation be
paid to the claimants.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that since no
documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased was submitted by the claimants, the
tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation by taking the notional income of the deceased into
consideration. It was further submitted that the deceased was studying in class 12 at the time of
accident, who was not earning anything, hence, the tribunal has awarded the right amount of
compensation which warrants no enhancement from this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.

8. With these submissions, it was prayed that claimants appeal be dismissed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and
documents submitted with the appeal

10. The Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur and Others vs. United India Insurance
Company Ltd. and Others 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.
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 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)

11. 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."

12. The claimants claimed that the deceased was a labourer who was earning about Rs.9,000/- per
month, which was also proved from the evidence of the mother of the deceased Smt. Kashmiri Devi PW-1,
who also admitted that deceased was studying in class 12 at the time of accident. Merely because the
deceased was studying in Class 12, it cannot be presumed that he was not earning anything. It is apparent that
claimants failed to submit any documentary proof of income and occupation of the deceased, as such, the
tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased by presuming that he
was earning Rs.15,000 per annum, which is grossly inadequate.

13. It is well settled that in the absence of documentary proof of income and occupation of the
deceased, the tribunal was supposed to assess the compensation by treating the deceased to be an
unskilled workman and was required to assess the compensation on the basis of minimum wages of
an unskilled workman prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident, which was
Rs.6,362/- per month.

14. In view of this, the claimants are entitled to get compensation on the basis that the
deceased was earning Rs.6,362/- per month.

15. Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 w.e.f. 26.09.2011, mandates that when
the deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of accident, the claimants are also entitled to
compensation on future prospects @50% of his income.

16. The Constitutional 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.
1 All. Smt. Kashmiri & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
1399

17. 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.

18. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs Laxman Maruti Jadhav
(Dead) through LRS and Others (2023) 13 SCC 334, held as under:-

32. In the present case, MACT had granted a meagre amount of Rs 5000 towards loss of consortium.
However, the High Court granted a total amount of Rs 70,000 as consolidated amount under all conventional
heads, which included loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] ,
the Constitution Bench of this Court had provided that all dependents should be separately awarded towards
loss of consortium and had actually awarded Rs 40,000 to each of the dependents. Considering the same, an
amount of Rs 40,000 each is awarded to each of the four dependents towards loss of consortium.
(emphasis supplied)

19. It is evident that as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, the claimants were
entitled to get compensation on future prospects of the deceased at the rate 50% of his income, but the
tribunal has not awarded any compensation on this account, which is erroneous. It is further evident that as
per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), since the deceased was about 22 years old at
the time of accident, a multiplier of 18 was required to be applied for assessing the compensation, but the
tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16, which requires enhancement.

20. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra), the claimants are
entitled to get enhanced compensation under non pecuniary heads.

21. It is apparent that father of the deceased had already died before the accident and as such,
the claimants were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased, who was supporting his
family consisting of his mother, 2 unmarried brother and one unmarried sister.

22. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another(2009) 6 SCC 121 as approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra), while discussing the situation where the deceased was bachelor and was supporting his
large family of dependents, has held as under:-

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction
follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and
living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence
to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
1400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would
be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of
the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor
is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may
be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

23. In view of this, even though the deceased was bachelor but since he was the sole bread earner of his
family, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it will be
appropriate that only 1/3rd amount of the income of the deceased is deducted towards his personal expenses
and on the remaining 2/3rd income, it is held that the claimants were dependent.

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

S.No. Compensation Heads
Amount
Awarded (in Rs.) In Accordance with
1.
Monthly income of deceased
6,362/-
Gurpreet Kaur (supra) and Jitendra
(supra)
2.
Annual Income of deceased
6,362 X 12 =
76,344/-
Gurpreet Kaur (supra) and Jitendra
(supra)
3.
Less 1/3th deduction towards self expenses (since
deceased was bachelor and was having large
family)
25,448/-
Sarla Verma (supra)
4.
Net annual income on which claimants were
dependent
50,896/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
5.
Add future prospects @50% since deceased was
about 22 years at the time of accident
25,448/-
UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998
6.
Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased 76,344/-
UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998
7.
Multiplier applied since age of deceased was about
22 years old at the time of accident
18
Pranay Sethi (supra)
8.
Total loss of dependency to the claimants
76,344 X 18 =
13,74,192/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
9.
Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/- each, increased
by 10% after every 3 years (4 claimants)
48,400 X 4 =
1,93,600/-
Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable (supra)
10.
Loss of estate @ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10%
after every 3 years
18,150/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
11.
Funeral Expenses @ Rs.15,000/- increased by 10%
after every 3 years

18,150/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
12.
Total compensation
16,04,092/-

-

25. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,04,092/- 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 owner U.P.S.R.T.C. of the offending Bus
No.
UP-15AT-4097.
1 All. Anita Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1401

26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the tribunal dated
30.04.2016 is modified to the above extent.

27. If any amount has been paid by U.P.S.R.T.C. previously, then it is entitled to adjust the
amount accordingly. U.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation
before the concerned tribunal within two months. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally
award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants keeping in view their age and
dependency.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1401
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 646 of 2025

Anita Rani ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appointment of the appellant on the post of Assistant Teacher, found to be void-ab-initio on
account of being over-age under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, could be interfered
with and protected on equitable considerations in absence of fraud or misrepresentation and after long
continuance in service.

Headnotes
Service Law - Appointment - Assistant Teacher - Age limit - U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981 - Over-age candidate - Validity of appointment:
Held: The appellant was over-age on the relevant dates, namely completion of training, submission of
application and appointment and, therefore, ineligible under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1981 - The benefit of
relaxation under the third proviso was not available since the outer age limit had already been crossed -
Consequently, the appointment was void-ab-initio. [Paras 9-12]

Service Law - Irregular appointment - No fraud or misrepresentation - Equity - Long
continuance in service:
Held: The appellant had disclosed her correct date of birth and had neither practised fraud nor
misrepresentation and the error in permitting her participation and appointment was attributable to the
authorities - The appellant having continued in service for about seven years, equitable considerations arose
in her favour - In such circumstances, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of
irregular appointments not tainted by fraud, limited protection was warranted. [Paras 13-17]

Service Law - Relief - Balancing of equities - Continuance in service - Denial of back wages:
Held: While setting aside the impugned orders, it was directed that the appellant shall be permitted to
continue in service, but shall not be entitled to salary for the period she had not worked, so as to balance
equities between the parties. [Para 18]