# Smt. Shobha Singh and Anr v. Mandal Prabandhak, the O.I.C. Co. Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 745
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No.141 of 2006
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHIii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shobha-singh-and-anr-v-mandal-prabandhak-the-o-i-c-co-ltd-anr-42581
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 166Appellant suffered permanent disability -
due to accident caused by Truck-driving
very rash and negligent manner-Tribunal
inspite of finding of 50% permanent
disability
due
to
want
of
income
certificate awarded Rs. 75000/- for loss
of future earning-held-award for pain,
suffering and loss of future prospectswholly inadequate- as per Laxmi Devi
judgment notional income world be
3000/- per month after 1/3 deduction
annual income would be 24000/-as per
schedule-II of Section 163 A-at age of 39
yrs.-if 16 multiplier applied total income
shall be 3,84000/- apart from Rs. 2 Lacs
for future medical expenses alongwith
6% interest-per annum.
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Held: Para-20
Admittedly, there is no evidence on
record to establish the actual income of
the injured/appellant No.2 and as such,
compensation would be awarded on the
basis of notional income of the injured.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Laxmi
Devi
and
others
versus
Mohammad Tabbar and another [2008
(2) TAC 394 (SC)] has held that notional
income to be Rs.3,000/- per month after
deduction of 1/3rd personal expenses,
the
annual
income
shall
come
to
Rs.24,000/-.

Case Law discussed:
(1995) 2 SCC 551; (2009) 6 SCC 1; (2009) 13
SCC 422; (2010) 10 SCC 254; (2011) 1 SCC
343; (2003)2 SCC 274; [2008(2) TAC 394
(SC)]

## Text

2 All] Smt. Kasmun Nisan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
745
Party is said to mount undue pressure upon
the applicant to withdraw the criminal trial in
question and threatens her. Complaints made
by her to authorities have turned futile.
Without making any observation or without
expressing any opinion on the truthfulness or
otherwise of the allegations and cross
allegations made by the parties against each
other in the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case it is in the ends of justice to
transfer the aforesaid criminal case from
judgeship Kanpur Dehat to some other
adjoining district because fair and impartial
enquiry or trial cannot be had in this case in
judgeship Kanpur Dehat where opposite
parties may be in a position to mount
pressure upon the applicant through their
men and in several other manner. In the
affidavit filed by opposite parties in support
of therir interim stay vacation application
they have deposed that if the case is
transferred to some other neighbouring
district other than district Auraiya they would
have no objection because the applicant and
her father have strong man power in district
Auraya and it would be inconvenient for
them to appear there.

6. To my mind the concerned
criminal trial should not be allowed to
prolonge which should be decided at an
early date by a Court where neither of the
parties may exercise man power in the
proceedings in the Court premises. It
would be convenient for the parties also
that the case may be sent to such a place
where the parties may conveniently
appear. To my mind, Sessions Division,
Fatehpur is on main route of train where
parties may reach conveniently from
Kanpur Nagar.

7. Let proceeding of 184 of 2012
(State Vs. Gulam Muhiuddin & others)
pending
in
the
Court
of
Judicial
Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat arising out of
Case Crime No. 76 of 2009, under
Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC
and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Rajpur, District
Kanpur Dehat be transferred to the Court
of CJM, district Fatehpur who shall
dispose of the matter finally in accordance
with law.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHIii, J.

First Appeal from Order No.141 of 2006

Smt. Shobha Singh and Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
Mandal Prabandhak, the O.I.C. Co. Ltd. &
Anr ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajendra Jaiswal and Sri Mukesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Mehrotra

Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 166Appellant suffered permanent disability -
due to accident caused by Truck-driving
very rash and negligent manner-Tribunal
inspite of finding of 50% permanent
disability
due
to
want
of
income
certificate awarded Rs. 75000/- for loss
of future earning-held-award for pain,
suffering and loss of future prospectswholly inadequate- as per Laxmi Devi
judgment notional income world be
3000/- per month after 1/3 deduction
annual income would be 24000/-as per
schedule-II of Section 163 A-at age of 39
yrs.-if 16 multiplier applied total income
shall be 3,84000/- apart from Rs. 2 Lacs
for future medical expenses alongwith
6% interest-per annum.
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Held: Para-20
Admittedly, there is no evidence on
record to establish the actual income of
the injured/appellant No.2 and as such,
compensation would be awarded on the
basis of notional income of the injured.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Laxmi
Devi
and
others
versus
Mohammad Tabbar and another [2008
(2) TAC 394 (SC)] has held that notional
income to be Rs.3,000/- per month after
deduction of 1/3rd personal expenses,
the
annual
income
shall
come
to
Rs.24,000/-.

Case Law discussed:
(1995) 2 SCC 551; (2009) 6 SCC 1; (2009) 13
SCC 422; (2010) 10 SCC 254; (2011) 1 SCC
343; (2003)2 SCC 274; [2008(2) TAC 394
(SC)]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.)

1. As per the report of Joint
Registrar
(Listing)
dated
30.4.2013,
service is sufficient on respondent No.2.
Sri Ashok Mehrotra has filed his power
on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. When the case called out, neither
the respondents were present nor any one
has put in appearance on their behalf. It
has been reported that there is no
slip/request
for
passing
over
or
adjournment of the case.

3. Heard Sri Mukesh Singh, learned
Counsel for the appellants/claimants and
perused the records.

4. Appellant No.2/claimant No.2
(Sabhajeet Singh), victim of a motor
vehicle accident has come to this Court
making grievance about the inadequate
amount of compensation awarded to him
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

5. Appellant No.2 used to earn his
livelihood as a farmer. On 25.11.2003, at
about 5.00 pm, appellant No.2 was
repairing his tractor at the shop of a Mistri
(joiner) when he was hit by a truck,
bearing registration No. 42-B/7094, which
was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner. In the accident, the left leg of the
appellant No.2 was seriously injured and
after operation of his feet, it has become 2
inch short. Appellant No.2 filed an
application (Claim Case No.61/2004)
before
the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District
Judge,
E.C.Act,
Faizabad,
claiming
compensation for the injuries suffered by
him under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. It was stated by him
before the Tribunal that at the time of
accident, his age was 39 years and due to
the accident, his savings were lost upto
Rs.50,000/-. As a result of the deformity
of his leg, he was no longer in a position
to walk without support and he was,
therefore, rendered incapable of doing any
work and to earn his livelihood.

6. The Tribunal found and held that
the accident took place as a result of the
negligent and rash driving by the truck
driver. Coming to the extent of disability,
the Tribunal referred to the disabledperson certificate given to the appellant
No.2 in which his disability was shown as
50%. Having held that that his disability
was 50%, fixed the amount of Rs.75000/-
as compensation for loss of future
earnings. In addition to this, the Tribunal
gave to the appellant No.2 Rs.10,000/- for
mental and physical agony due to
permanent
disability,
Rs.6,000/-
for
traveling and Rs.75,000/- for medical
expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by
its award dated 31.10.2005 held the
appellant No.2 entitled to receive a total
2 All] Smt. Shobha Singh and Anr. Vs. Mandal Prabandhak, the O.I.C. Ltd. And Anr.
747
sum of Rs.1,66,000/- as compensation
along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition on 16.3.2004 till the date of
payment.

7. Hence the instant appeal.

8. In last two decades, the Apex
Court as well as this Court has decided
large number of cases involving claim of
compensation by the victims of accidents
and/or their families. It will be useful to
notice some of the judgments in which
general principles have been laid down
for the guidance of the Tribunals and the
Courts.

9. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control
(India)
Private
Limited
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, the Apex
Court, while dealing with a case involving
claim of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the
judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward
v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsbury's
Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12
(page 446) and observed:

"Broadly speaking while fixing an
amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have
to be assessed separately as pecuniary
damages and special damages. Pecuniary
damages are those which the victim has
actually incurred and which are capable of
being calculated in terms of money;
whereas non-pecuniary damages are those
which are incapable of being assessed by
arithmetical calculations. In order to
appreciate
two
concepts
pecuniary
damages may include expenses incurred
by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date
of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far
non-pecuniary damages are concerned,
they may include (i) damages for mental
and physical shock, pain and suffering,
already suffered or likely to be suffered in
future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may
include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be
able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for
the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on
account of injury the normal longevity of
the person concerned is shortened; (iv)
inconvenience,
hardship,
discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental
stress in life."

10. In the above case, the Apex
Court further observed:

"In its very nature whenever a
tribunal or a court is required to fix the
amount of compensation in cases of
accident, it involves some guesswork,
some hypothetical consideration, some
amount of sympathy linked with the
nature of the disability caused. But all the
aforesaid elements have to be viewed with
objective standards."

11. In Nizam's Institute of Medical
Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Three Judge
Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a
case arising out of the complaint filed under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While
enhancing the compensation awarded by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.1 crore,
the Apex Court made the following
observations which can appropriately be
applied for deciding the petitions filed under
Section 166 of the Act:

"At the same time we often find that
a person injured in an accident leaves his
family in greater distress vis-`-vis a
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
family in a case of death. In the latter
case, the initial shock gives way to a
feeling of resignation and acceptance, and
in time, compels the family to move on.
The case of an injured and disabled
person is, however, more pitiable and the
feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and
often destitution enures every day. The
support that is needed by a severely
handicapped
person
comes
at
an
enormous price, physical, financial and
emotional, not only on the victim but even
more so on his family and attendants and
the stress saps their energy and destroys
their equanimity."

(emphasis supplied)

12. In Reshma Kumari V. Madan
Mohan reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422,
the Apex Court reiterated that the
compensation awarded under the Act
should be just and also identified the
factors which should be kept in mind
while
determining
the
amount
of
compensation. The relevant portions of
the judgment are extracted below:

"The compensation which is required
to be determined must be just. While the
claimants are required to be compensated
for the loss of their dependency, the same
should not be considered to be a windfall.
Unjust enrichment should be discouraged.
This Court cannot also lose sight of the
fact that in given cases, as for example
death of the only son to a mother, she can
never be compensated in monetary terms.
The question as to the methodology
required to be applied for determination
of compensation as regards prospective
loss of future earnings, however, as far as
possible should be based on certain
principles. A person may have a bright
future prospect; he might have become
eligible to promotion immediately; there
might have been chances of an immediate
pay revision, whereas in another (sic
situation) the nature of employment was
such that he might not have continued in
service; his chance of promotion, having
regard to the nature of employment may
be distant or remote. It is, therefore,
difficult for any court to lay down rigid
tests which should be applied in all
situations. There are divergent views. In
some cases it has been suggested that
some sort of hypotheses or guess work
may be inevitable. That may be so.

In the Indian context several other
factors should be taken into consideration
including education of the dependants and
the nature of job. In the wake of changed
societal conditions and global scenario,
future prospects may have to be taken into
consideration not only having regard to
the status of the employee, his educational
qualification; his past performance but
also other relevant factors, namely, the
higher salaries and perks which are being
offered by the private companies these
days. In fact while determining the
multiplicand this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that
even dearness allowance and perks with
regard thereto from which the family
would have derived monthly benefit, must
be taken into consideration.

One of the incidental issues which
has also to be taken into consideration is
inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation
into
consideration
wholly
incorrect?
Unfortunately, unlike other developed
countries in India there has been no
scientific study. It is expected that with
the rising inflation the rate of interest
would go up. In India it does not happen.
It, therefore, may be a relevant factor
2 All] Smt. Shobha Singh and Anr. Vs. Mandal Prabandhak, the O.I.C. Ltd. And Anr.
749
which may be taken into consideration for
determining the actual ground reality. No
hard-and-fast rule, however, can be laid
down therefor."

(emphasis supplied)

13. In Arvind Kumar Mishra V.
New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited reported in (2010) 10 SCC 254,
the Apex Court considered the plea for
enhancement of compensation made by
the appellant, who was a student of final
year of engineering and had suffered 70%
disability in a motor accident. After
noticing factual matrix of the case, the
Apex Court observed:

"We do not intend to review in detail
state
of
authorities
in
relation
to
assessment of all damages for personal
injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of
assessment of all damages for personal
injury is compensation. The whole idea is
to put the claimant in the same position as
he was insofar as money can. Perfect
compensation is hardly possible but one
has to keep in mind that the victim has
done no wrong; he has suffered at the
hands of the wrongdoer and the court
must take care to give him full and fair
compensation for that he had suffered."

(emphasis supplied)

14. Recently, the Apex Court again
considered the matter in detail in Raj
Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 343 and held :

"The provision of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) makes it
clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the
extent possible, fully and adequately
restore the 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. The court or the
Tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively
and
exclude
from
consideration any speculation or fancy,
though some conjecture with reference to
the
nature
of
disability
and
its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the
physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. This
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. [See
C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan
Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64, R.D. Hattangadi v.
Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1
SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby 1970
AC 467.] The heads under which
compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary
damages
(Special
damages)

(i)Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalisation, 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.
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

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. Assessment of
pecuniary damages under Item (i) and
under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much
difficulty as they involve reimbursement
of actuals and are easily ascertainable
from the evidence. Award under the head
of future medical expenses--Item (iii)--
depends upon specific medical evidence
regarding need for further treatment and
cost
thereof.
Assessment
of
nonpecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and
(vi)--involves determination of lump sum
amounts with reference to circumstances
such
as
age,
nature
of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by
the claimant and the effect thereof on the
future life of the claimant. Decisions of
this Court and the High Courts contain
necessary guidelines for award under
these heads, if necessary. What usually
poses some difficulty is the assessment of
the loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are
concerned with that assessment in this
case.

Assessment of future loss of earnings
due to permanent disability Disability
refers to any restriction or lack of ability
to perform an activity in the manner
considered normal for a human being.
Permanent
disability
refers
to
the
residuary incapacity or loss of use of
some part of the body, found existing at
the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation,
after
achieving
the
maximum
bodily
improvement
or
recovery which is likely to remain for the
remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss
of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to
exist at the end of the period of treatment
and recuperation. 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. The permanent disabilities
that may arise from motor accident
injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities
which are enumerated in the Persons with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities,
Protection
of
Rights
and
Full
Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities
Act", for short). But if any of the
disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of
the Disabilities Act are the result of
injuries sustained in a motor accident,
they can be permanent disabilities for the
purpose of claiming compensation. The
percentage of permanent disability is
expressed by the doctors with reference to
the whole body, or more often than not,
2 All] Smt. Shobha Singh and Anr. Vs. Mandal Prabandhak, the O.I.C. Ltd. And Anr.
751
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%.

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, the 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 of either too low or too
high a compensation. What requires to be
assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after assessing
the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at
the future loss of earnings (by applying
the standard multiplier method used to
determine loss of dependency). We may
however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment,
the Tribunal may find that the percentage
of loss of earning capacity as a result of
the permanent disability, is approximately
the same as the percentage of permanent
disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage
for determination of compensation."

15. In the light of the above, we
shall
now
consider
whether
the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable or claimant/appellant
is entitled to get higher compensation.

16.

According
to
the
claimants/appellants,
the
Tribunal
admitted the fact that left leg of the
appellant was amputated/shortened due to
injuries caused in the accident and also
relied upon the disability certificate, the
Tribunal assessed 50% disability but even
then, the Tribunal has not applied the
basic
principle
of
computation
of
compensation on multiplier basis and
awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation for
amputation/physical disability.
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

17. Although the appellant had
suffered
50%
disablement,
the
documentary evidence shows that he will
require treatment in future. The Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation for
future treatment, which would necessarily
include doctor's fee, cost of medicine,
transportation, diet etc. Keeping in view
the high cost of living, we feel that ends
of justice will be served by awarding a
lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lacs for future
treatment.

18. The award made by the Tribunal
for pain, suffering and trauma and in lieu
of loss of the future prospects is wholly
inadequate. The claimant will neither be
able to work properly nor he will be able
to lead a normal life. His future prospects
are also bleak. Therefore, it is apposite to
award reasonable and just compensation
to the appellant for pain, suffering and
trauma caused due to the accident and
loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
which, in our view, should be Rs.2 lacs.

19. It is true that in the petition filed
by him under Section 166 of the Act, the
appellant had claimed compensation of
Rs. 9,75,000.00 only, but as held in
Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh reported
in (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of
any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for
that reason any competent Court is
entitled to award higher compensation to
the victim of an accident.

20. Admittedly, there is no evidence
on record to establish the actual income of
the injured/appellant No.2 and as such,
compensation would be awarded on the
basis of notional income of the injured.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Laxmi
Devi
and
others
versus
Mohammad Tabbar and another [2008
(2) TAC 394 (SC)] has held that notional
income to be Rs.3,000/- per month after
deduction of 1/3rd personal expenses, the
annual income shall come to Rs.24,000/-.

21. From the perusal of the records,
it
reflects
that
the
age
of
the
injured/appellant No.2, at the time of
accident, was about 39 years and as such,
as per Second Schedule of Section 163 A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of
16 is to be applied. Accordingly, applying
the multiplier of 16, the total income shall
be Rs.3,84,000/-. In addition to the said
amount, claimants are also entitled to
Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses
and other expenses.

22. In the result, the impugned
judgment and award dated 31.10.2005 is
modified and it is declared that the
claimants/appellants shall be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.5,84,000.00. He
shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing the claim
petition till realization. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to
pay
the
enhanced
amount
of
compensation to the claimant/appellant
with interest @ 6% within a period of
three months from today in the form of a
Demand Draft prepared in their name.

23. The appeal is allowed partly, in
above terms.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Review Petition No. 190(Cons.) of 2008

Smt. Raj Kumari and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus