# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , M.G. Marg, Allahabad v. Ramesh Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 199
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-03
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1063 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-m-g-marg-allahabad-v-ramesh-kumar-ors-50582
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation-Tribunal has fallen in error
in considering the disability certificate -
claimant was a driver by profession- There
is an amputation of lower limb which is
below the thigh-the physical disability
caused due to an accident has to be
judged with reference to the nature of
work being done by the injured for
assessing award of compensation which is
given in a decade old judgment of Apex
Court in Mohan Soni- In the instant case
the physical disability which has resulted
from the accident requires to be judged
with the work being performed by a
person-The
respondent
in
this
case
suffered injury on his right lower limb had
to be amputated on account of accident as
a result of accident and amputation of his
right lower limb, he would not be in a
position to perform his routine work of
driver- The amount awarded holds that he
was earning Rs.1,000/- and that is how
Rs.12000/- have been calculated and
granted multiplier of 13 which comes to
Rs.2,00,000/- The award of the year 1998
and the rate of interest was normally at
the rate of 9% but as future loss is not
granted, looking to the other amount
which are also on the lower side, interest
at the rate of 10% cannot be said on
higher side.(Para 1 to 10)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Mohan Soni Vs Ram Avtar Tomar & ors. (2012)
2 SCC 267

## Text

8 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg, Allahabad Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.
199

17. This Court is thankful to Sri
B.R.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Sri A.K.Shukla, learned
counsel for respondents for ably assisting
this Court.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 199
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1063 of 1998

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , M.G.
Marg, Allahabad ...Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Avnish Mishra, Sri Aditya Singh Parihar,
Ms. Poonam Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.R. Jaiswal, Sri B.N Pandey

A. Civil Law-Motor Vehicles Act,1988Section
173-Challenge
to-award
of
compensation-Tribunal has fallen in error
in considering the disability certificate -
claimant was a driver by profession- There
is an amputation of lower limb which is
below the thigh-the physical disability
caused due to an accident has to be
judged with reference to the nature of
work being done by the injured for
assessing award of compensation which is
given in a decade old judgment of Apex
Court in Mohan Soni- In the instant case
the physical disability which has resulted
from the accident requires to be judged
with the work being performed by a
person-The
respondent
in
this
case
suffered injury on his right lower limb had
to be amputated on account of accident as
a result of accident and amputation of his
right lower limb, he would not be in a
position to perform his routine work of
driver- The amount awarded holds that he
was earning Rs.1,000/- and that is how
Rs.12000/- have been calculated and
granted multiplier of 13 which comes to
Rs.2,00,000/- The award of the year 1998
and the rate of interest was normally at
the rate of 9% but as future loss is not
granted, looking to the other amount
which are also on the lower side, interest
at the rate of 10% cannot be said on
higher side.(Para 1 to 10)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Mohan Soni Vs Ram Avtar Tomar & ors. (2012)
2 SCC 267

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged
the judgment and award dated 29.8.1998
passed by IXth Additional and Session
Judge, Kanpur Dehat in MACP No.317 of
1993
awarding
compensation
of
Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
10% to the respondent-claimants.

2. The brief facts as culled out from
the record are that the the claimant-Ramesh
Chandra was employed as a driver on
Truck No. UP-78/9655 and on 19.12.1992
at about 6:00 a.m. when he was going
towards Hamirpur, his truck met with an
accident with another truck bearing Truck
No. U.A.N.-8577. The claimant-Ramesh
Chandra sustained serious injuries which
resulted in amputation of his leg.

3. The accident is not in dispute and,
therefore, the said aspect is not is caused.
The policy being in vouge is also not in
dispute and their liability is not in dispute.
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The only dispute is regarding percentage of
disability and the interest. No other grounds
are raised except these two grounds.

4. According to counsel for appellant
the Tribunal has fallen in error in
considering the disability certificate which
showed that there was 50% of disability
despite that the Tribunal has considered the
disability of the injured to be 100% which
is bad in eye of law.

5. While going through the record it is
very clear that the claimant was a driver by
profession. There is an amputation of
lower limb which is below the thigh.It is
a question of fact that the physical
disability caused due to an accident has to
be judged with reference to the nature of
work being done by the injured for
assessing award of compensation which
is given in a decade old judgment of
Apex Court in Mohan Soni Vs. Ram
Avtar Tomar and others ( 2012) 2 SCC
267. In our case the physical disability
which has resulted from the accident
requires to be judged with the work being
performed by a person. The respondent in
this case suffered injury on his right
lower limb had to be amputated on
account of accident as a result of accident
and amputation of his right lower limb,
he would not be in a position to perform
his routine work of driver.

6. The amount awarded holds that he
was earning Rs.1,000/- and that is how
Rs.12000/- have been calculated and
granted multiplier of 13 which comes to
Rs.2,00,000/- have been awarded. This
Court has considered the oral submission
on behalf of appellant. The amount
awarded cannot be said to be on the higher
side.

7. In that view of the matter the
injured would not be in a position to
continue with his vocation of driver, this
finding cannot be said to be perverse.

8. The multiplier of 13 has been
invoked. The Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head of future loss of
income and, therefore, it cannot be said that
the Tribunal has fallen in error in not
granting what can be said to be just
compensation.

9. The award of the year 1998 and the
rate of interest was normally at the rate of
9% but as future loss is not granted,
looking to the other amount which are also
on the lower side, interest at the rate of
10% cannot be said on higher side.

10. In view of the above, this appeal
sans merit and is dismissed.

11. Record and proceeding be sent
back to the Tribunal forthwith who shall
immediately disburse the amount to the
claimants after ascertaining his identity.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 200
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2023

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1287 of 1998
And
First Appeal From Order No. 1178 of 1998

Smt. Sushma Devi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
The National Insurance Company & Ors.
 ...Respondents