# Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 965
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 151 of 2013
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sarba-maurya-ors-v-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-54600
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Mukund Tewari, Satyajit Banerji, Surendra Pal
Singh

A.
Motor
Accident
Act,
1988
-
Compensation - Enhancement in loss of
consortium, loss of eSt., funeral expenses
claimed - Entitlement - Pranay Sethi's
case and Babita's case relied upon - Held,
the amount towards loss of eSt., loss of
consortium
and
funeral
expenses
as
awarded by the learned Tribunal stand
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- &
Rs.15,000/- respectively. Each of the
claimants would be entitled to loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Rate of
interest on the amount as has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal is
also enhanced to 9% per annum. (Para
21, 23 and 24)

B.
Motor
Accident
Act,
1988
-
Compensation - Future prospects -
Determination - Savita's case relied
upon - Held, the notional income is
increased by 30% being the future
prospect. Said amount would be added
to
the
notional
income
of
the
deceased, upon which deduction as
done by the learned Tribunal on actual
income would be done. (Para 22 and
24)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
965

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Kapil Kumar versus Raj
Kumar; (2022) 10 SCC 281, has held that
unless the concurrent findings recorded by
the courts below were found to be perverse,
the same were not required to be interfered
with by the High Court in exercise of
powers under Section 100 CPC.

29. In view of above and considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case this court is of the view that the
impugned judgment and decrees have been
passed in accordance with law by reasoned
and speaking order, which does suffer from
any illegality, error or perversity. Thus the
substantial question of law formulated by
this court does not arise in this case
because the suit for cancellation of sale
deed can be filed by a person, who has a
prima facie title of the land in dispute and
the
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 had the title
except for the sale deed in question,
which was challenged, which was an
out come of fraud, cheating and
impersonation as discussed above. The
Second Appeal has been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds,
which lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

30.

The
Second
Appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 965
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 151 of 2013
Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Y.K. Pandey Rakesh Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mukund Tewari, Satyajit Banerji, Surendra Pal
Singh

A.
Motor
Accident
Act,
1988
-
Compensation - Enhancement in loss of
consortium, loss of eSt., funeral expenses
claimed - Entitlement - Pranay Sethi's
case and Babita's case relied upon - Held,
the amount towards loss of eSt., loss of
consortium
and
funeral
expenses
as
awarded by the learned Tribunal stand
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- &
Rs.15,000/- respectively. Each of the
claimants would be entitled to loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Rate of
interest on the amount as has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal is
also enhanced to 9% per annum. (Para
21, 23 and 24)

B.
Motor
Accident
Act,
1988
-
Compensation - Future prospects -
Determination - Savita's case relied
upon - Held, the notional income is
increased by 30% being the future
prospect. Said amount would be added
to
the
notional
income
of
the
deceased, upon which deduction as
done by the learned Tribunal on actual
income would be done. (Para 22 and
24)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

1. National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680

2. Savita Vs Bindar Singh & ors.; (2014) 4
SCC 505

3. Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 2024; Babita & ors.
Vs Karnataka Road Lines Pvt Ltd. & ors.
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants, Shri Dhawalbir Prasad holding
brief of Shri Mukund Tewari, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri
Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.

2. As per the order of this Court
dated 23.09.2019, notice has been issued
to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is
also respondent No.7 in the connected
First Appeal from Order No.1211 of
2011, and has been served sufficiently but
no objections have been filed on his
behalf nor anybody appears on his behalf.
Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear
the appeal and decide it on merit.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details
facts of the case are that an accident is
said to have occurred on 13.09.2002
involving a tempo of the deceased Munni
Lal, husband of appellant No.1 and the
father of appellants No.2 to 5 and a
D.C.M. which resulted in the death of
Shri Munni Lal.

4. The claimants filed Claim
Application No.601 of 2002 In Re Smt
Sarba Maurya & Ors vs National
Insurance Company & Ors.

5. Learned Tribunal vide judgment
and order dated 27.09.2011, a copy of
which is part of the appeal, has awarded
an amount of Rs.2,29,500/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum to the
claimants.

6. The Oriental Insurance Company
had filed First Appeal from Order
No.1211 of 2011 being aggrieved by the
aforesaid
award,
which
has
been
withdrawn
vide
the
order
dated
11.12.2021.

7. The appellants by means of the
instant
appeal
have
prayed
for
enhancement of the amount towards (a)
loss of consortium; (b) loss of estate (c)
cremation/funeral expenses; (d) future
prospect;
(e)
consortium
to
each
claimants; and (f) enhancement of rate of
interest as has been awarded by the
learned Tribunal.

8. Admittedly, the vehicle being
driven by Shri Munni Lal was not having
a valid insurance at the time of the
accident.

9. Learned Tribunal by means of the
award dated 27.09.2011 after ascertaining
the monthly income of the deceased @
Rs.5,000/-
and
by
considering
the
contributory negligence has assessed the
monthly income thereafter @ Rs.2,500/-
per
month,
the
annual
income
of
Rs.30,000/- and after deduction of 1/3rd of
the amount has applied a multiplier of 11 in
order to arrive at the compensation of
Rs.2.20 Lakh for the claimants.

10. Learned Tribunal has also
awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
the loss of consortium, Rs.2500/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards the
funeral expenses.

11.

Placing
reliance
on
the
constitution bench judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd., vs Pranay Sethi
& Ors : (2017) 16 SCC 680, the argument
of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
4 All. Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
967
consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively and the said amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every
three years.

12. Further contention is that the
learned Tribunal has also erred in law in
not awarding any amount towards future
prospects, which as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Savita vs Bindar Singh & Ors : (2014) 4
SCC 505 should be increased by at least
30% of the notional income, therefore, the
claimants are entitled to get the benefit of
Rs.750/- being the future prospects and the
said amount should be added to the
notional income of the victim. The total
deduction on personal expenses should
have
been
one
third
of
Rs.2500+Rs.750=Rs.3250
per
month
amounting to Rs.1083.33/-. Therefore, the
salary after deduction would come to
Rs.2166.67/-
and
after
applying
the
multiplier
of
11
the
amount
of
compensation
to
be
paid
would
be2166.67x11x12 =2,86,000/-.

13. Placing reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Babita & Ors vs Karnataka Road Lines
Pvt Ltd. & Ors : Civil Appeal No.2222 of
2024, it has been argued that the
consortium of Rs.40,000/- as directed to be
paid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra) would be
payable to all the claimants.

14. Placing reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Babita (supra), it is also contended that the
rate of interest which has been awarded @
6% per annum merits to be enhanced
considering that the incident pertains to the
year 2002 wherein a higher rate of interest
was prevailing in the country. Thus, it is
prayed that as per the rate of interest
awarded in the case of Babita (supra) the
rate of interest may be enhanced to 9% per
annum.

15. On the other hand, Shri Dhawalbir
Prasad, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and Shri Satyajit Banerji,
learned cousnel for the respondent No.3
have argued that the learned Tribunal has
correctly
awarded
the
compensation
amount in favour of the claimants, which
does not require any enhancement.

16. Incidentally, Shri Satyajit Banerji,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has
argued that once the very factum of the
incident is in dispute consequently the
appeal itself merits to be dismissed.

17. At the outset the argument of the
Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel is
found to be patently fallacious considering
the fact that respondent No.3 has himself
not raised any challenge to the award
passed by the Tribunal and thus for all
practical purposes, the said award has
attained finality. Even the appeal which has
been filed by the respondent No.1 i.e.
Oriental Insurance Company has been
dismissed as withdrawn consequently it
does not lie in the mouth of the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3 to
raise such an argument. Thus, the said
argument is rejected.

18. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record, it
emerges that the accident took place on
13.09.2002 involving a vehicle which was
being driven by Shri Munni Lal namely a
tempo. On account of said accident, Shri
Munni Lal died on the spot. The claimants
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed a claim petition before the learned
Tribunal. Learned Tribunal vide the award
dated 27.09.2011 has awarded an amount
of Rs.2,29,500/- in favour of the claimants
along with interest @ 6%.

19. The claimants, praying for
enhancement of the amount, have preferred
the instant appeal.

20. Enhancement has been prayed
under the following heads:-

(a) loss of consortium;

(b) loss of estate;

(c) cremation/funeral expenses;

(d) future prospect;

(e) consortium to each claimants;
and

(f) enhancement of rate of interest
as has been awarded by the learned
Tribunal.

21. So far as the heads (a), (b) & (c)
i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and
cremation/funeral expenses are concerned,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) has held as under:-

"59.8. Reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years."

22. So far as head (d) i.e. future
prospect is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Savita (supra) has held
as under:-

"8. We have failed to understand
why the Tribunal as well as the High Court
lost its sight to hold that the victim could
have had future prospects with regard to
the amounts the victim used to earn during
his lifetime? Therefore, the notional income
also needs to be increased by at least 30%
and thereby the claimant is entitled to get
the benefit of Rs 900 being the future
prospects; the said amount should be added
to the notional income of the victim.
Therefore, it appears that the total salary
along with future prospects of the victim
should have been calculated at Rs 3000
plus Rs 900 amounting to Rs 3900 per
month. The total deduction on personal
expenses, in our opinion, should have been
one-third of Rs 3900 amounting to Rs 1300.
Therefore, the salary after deduction would
come to Rs 2600 and the multiplier should
be applied at 17, as has been done
correctly by the Tribunal after taking into
account the age of the victim. In this
process, the total amount of compensation
to be paid would be Rs 2600 * 17 * 12
amounting to Rs 5,30,400."

23. So far as heads (e) and (f) i.e.
consortium
to
each
claimants
and
enhancement of rate of interest as has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal are
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Babita (supra) has held as
under:-

"12. We are of the opinion that
besides a sum of ?70,000/- (Rupees Seventy
thousand only) which could be treated
under the head of conventional expenses,
each of the claimants are entitled to loss of
consortium @ ?40,000/- (Rupees Forty
thousand only) (i.e. 40,000 x 4 =
?1,60,000/-
(Rupees
One
lakh
sixty
thousand only). Lastly, in our opinion,
simple interest awarded on the total
estimated amount by the Tribunal as also
the High Court ought to be enhanced from
6% per annum to 9% per annum which
4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko Vs. Manorama & Ors.
969
would be closer to the then prevalent rate
of interest i.e. in the year 2015."

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the appeal is allowed. The
amount towards loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses as
awarded by the learned Tribunal stand
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- &
Rs.15,000/- respectively. Each of the
claimants would be entitled to loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Rate of
interest on the amount as has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal is also
enhanced to 9% per annum. As regards
the future prospects, the notional income
is increased by 30% being the future
prospect. Said amount would be added to
the notional income of the deceased,
upon which deduction as done by the
learned Tribunal on actual income would
be done. The Insurance Company is
directed
to
calculate
the
enhanced
amounts as observed by this Court in
preceding paragraphs keeping in view the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra),
Savita (supra) and Babita (supra) within
a period of two weeks from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before it and deposit the same before the
learned Tribunal within a period of four
weeks thereafter. The learned trial court
shall ensure that the payment of the
aforesaid
amount
be
made
to
the
appellants within next four weeks of the
amount being deposited before it, in
accordance with law.

25. Let trial court record be returned.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 969
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.04.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 198 of 2024

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko
 ... Appellant
Versus
Manorama & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mrs. Pooja Arora

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Sections
165 & 166 - Claim proceeding - Negligent
driving - Effect of failure in not proving -
Ground was taken by the Insurance
company to the effect that the claimants
failed to prove that the vehicle having
been driven negligently and rashly -
Acceptability - Held, a perusal of the claim
application and the written St.ment would
duly
indicate
that
there
was
clear
negligence on the part of the driver.
Consequently
keeping
in
view
the
specific findings of fact as given by
learned Tribunal, the said ground is
rejected. (Para 21 and 25)

B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of accident -
Filing
of
charge-sheet
against
a
particular person - Relevance - Strict
proof, how far required - Bimla Devi's
case and Mangla Ram's case relied upon
- Held, the chargesheet indicates that
on account of negligence of the driver
Shri Shitla Prasad, who was the driver of
the concerned vehicle, the said accident
had taken place. It is also indicated that
the truck concerned has been released
on the orders passed by the learned
court
-
Learned
tribunal
has
not
committed any error in arriving at a
finding of the deceased having died on
account of an accident involving the
truck. (Para 27, 28 and 33)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)