# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Amzad Khan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 588
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-03
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-amzad-khan-ors-43489
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No.- 368 Of 2016

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Amzad Khan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:
Sri Rajeev Chaddha

Counsel for Respondents:
Sri h.p. Dube

Proceedings

The Tribunal framed four issues for determination, namely: (1) negligence of the driver; (2) validity of
driving license; (3) applicability of insurance coverage; and (4) quantum of compensation. On
consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and documents placed before it, the Tribunal held in favour
of the claimant on all issues and passed the award on 9.12.2015 granting compensation of Rs.
16,85,000/- along with 7% interest.

Procedure

The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal was heard after examining the
record and submissions of the parties, and it was decided at the admission stage without interference
in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Penal Sections

Not applicable - this is a Motor Accident Compensation appeal under Section 173 MV Act.

Case Law

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) - principles for multiplier
determination.
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control of India Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (1) AWC 39 (SC) - exceptional cases justify
treating disability as 100%.
Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 (III) SLVR 137 - doctors need not be summoned
unless necessary.
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 - principles of assessing permanent disability.
Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co., 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC) - just compensation to restore victim
as far as money can.
General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amzad Khan & Ors.
589

U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720
V. Mekala v. M. Malathi, 2014 (3) TAC 5 (SC)
Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 (1) TAC 369 (SC)
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co., (2010) 10 SCC 254

HEADNOTES

The claimant, a 15-year-old boy, suffered grievous injuries when he was hit by a truck on 15.4.2015,
resulting in the amputation of his left leg and the severance of both testicles, leading to permanent
total disability. The Tribunal correctly relied upon the claimant's school certificate to determine his age
and applied a multiplier of 18 in accordance with Sarla Verma v. DTC. The disability certificate issued
by the Medical Board, being a public document under Section 77 of the Evidence Act, was admissible
without examining the doctor. Considering the combined loss of limb and reproductive capacity, the
claimant was rightly treated as 100% permanently disabled as guided by R.D. Hattangadi (SC). The
compensation of Rs. 16,85,000/- with 7% interest was held to be lawful and justified, and the appeal
by the insurer was dismissed in limine.

FACTS

Claimant, a 15-year-old boy, was hit by truck UP 93 T 9497 on 15.4.2015 while waiting for
transport on Jhansi-Kanpur Highway.
Truck was driven on the wrong side, ran over claimant's left thigh; leg was crushed; both
testicles severed.
Claimant admitted to Jhansi Medical College, then to Gwalior where left leg was amputated.
Medical expenses exceeded Rs. 4 lakhs.
First Information Report lodged on 4.5.2015.
MACT awarded Rs. 16,85,000/- + 7% interest, holding 90% disability but treating it as 100%
due to combined physical and reproductive loss.
Insurance Company appealed under Section 173 MV Act, 1988.

CONTENTIONS

Appellant (Insurance Company)

Claimant's age wrongly treated as 15 years; should be 13 → multiplier of 15, not 18.
Disability certificate not proved by doctor → inadmissible.
Tribunal wrongly treated 90% disability as 100%.

Respondents (Claimant)

Age based on school certificate is correct; multiplier of 18 justified.
Disability certificate issued by Medical Board is a public document, hence admissible.
Loss of limb + loss of testicles = functional disability is total (100%).

ANALYSIS

Age Determination
Tribunal considered claim, medical papers, disability certificate, and marksheet.
Age of 15 years based on school records is valid.
No error in adopting multiplier of 18.
Multiplier Issue
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
As per Sarla Verma chart, multiplier 18 applies to ages 15-20.
Tribunal correctly applied law.
Admissibility of Disability Certificate
Certificate issued by Medical Board → public document.
Under Section 77 Evidence Act, calling doctor unnecessary.
No illegality in relying on disability document.
Treatment of Disability as 100%
Amputation of leg + severance of both testicles = total loss of normal life functions.
Tribunal correctly invoked R.D. Hattangadi to treat disability as functional 100%.
Notional Income
Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs. 5,000 - reasonable and not excessive.
Supported by V. Mekala (SC), where Rs. 10,000 approved.
Compensation Principles
Tribunal awarded amounts under medical expense, pain/suffering, future prospects, loss of marital
life.
Awards align with Arvind Kumar Mishra and Raj Kumar.
Delay in FIR
Tribunal rightly held delay does not vitiate accident claims.
Victim behavior post-accident is not expected to be legally meticulous.
Negligence
Eyewitnesses + site plan established rash driving on wrong side.
Tribunal's finding unassailable.
Driver's License & Insurance
Valid DL and insurance proved; insurer liable.
No Grounds to Interfere
Compensation based on established legal principles.
No perversity or illegality.

CONCLUSION

Tribunal's award of Rs. 16,85,000/- with 7% interest upheld.
Tribunal correctly determined age, disability, multiplier, and compensation.
Appeal filed by Insurance Company dismissed in limine.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
&
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri H.P. Dube,
learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the
Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award dated 9.12.2015 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Jhansi awarding a sum of
Rs.16,85,000/- towards compensation along with 7% interest from the date of filing of the
claim petition till actual payment.

3. Factual matrix of the case in brief giving rise to the dispute are as under :-
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amzad Khan & Ors.
591

4. An application under Section 167 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act
was preferred by claimant-respondent no.1 through his father natural guardian seeking a
compensation to the tune of Rs.76.00 lakh along with 12% interest on the allegation that on
15.4.2015 when the claimant was waiting on the side of Jhansi-Kanpur national highway for
a conveyance to visit Chirgaon, the offending truck bearing registration No.U.P.-93-T-9497
coming from Chirgaon side, hit him and the wheel of the offending vehicle ran over the left
thigh of the claimant, on account of which the same was crushed and both his testicles were
also severed. It was also pleaded that the truck which was supposed to move on the other
lane besides the divider on the road was being driven on the wrong side rashly and
negligently. It was also pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident the
complete left leg of the claimant was amputated and because of the testicles being severed,
he cannot live a normal married life. He was admitted in Jhansi Medical College but on
account of serious condition, referred to Gwalior where he was admitted from 15.4.2015 to
26.4.2015, during which period, the amputation of his left leg was carried out. On account of
costly medical expenses, the claimant could not continue treatment at Gwalior and was
brought back to Jhansi and admitted in Sanmati Hospital, Jhansi till 15.5.2015. It was also
pleaded that the claimant is still undergoing treatment and about Rs. 4.00 lakh has been
incurred till that time in treatment and conveyance and there is likelihood of further
expenses in treatment.

5. The proceedings were contested by the Insurance Company as well as the owner and
driver of the offending truck denying the allegations by filing written statement. The owner
and the driver pleaded that no accident as alleged took place and a false story has been
cooked up in order to claim compensation and in any view of the matter since the truck was
duly insured with the appellant-insurance company and driver was having a valid driving
license, the liability was on the Insurance Company. It was pleaded on behalf of the
Insurance Company that the claim has been filed on false and concocted story and the driver
of the offending truck was not having license and permit and as such the claim petition was
liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following four
issues :-

1. Whether on 15.4.2015 at about 1.30 P.M. when the claimant was waiting for a
conveyance by the side of the road to go to Chirgaon, was hit by offending truck No.U.P.-
93-T-9497 being driven rashly and negligently resulting in serious injuries ?

2. Whether at the time of accident, the driver of the offending truck was having a
valid driving license ?

3. Whether on the date and time of accident, the offending truck was insured with
the New India Assurance Company Ltd.?

4. Whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation and if yes then to what
extent ?
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. To support the allegation made in the claim petition, the claimant himself appeared
in the witness box as PW.1 and also produced Anwar Khan and Majeed Khan as PW.2 and
PW.3. The claimant also filed first information report, injury report, registration certificate
of the offending truck, insurance policy, charge sheet submitted by the Police, site plan and
also various prescriptions and medical papers of his treatment and the disability certificate in
documentary evidence. The owner and the driver of the offending truck filed registration
certificate of the vehicle, insurance policy, driving license and fitness certificate.

8. PW.1, the claimant in his examination-in-chief supported the allegations made in the
claim petition in respect of the accident. He categorically stated that offending truck was
being driven on the wrong side of the road and ran over his left leg and the truck driver after
leaving the vehicle absconded. He also stated that there is a divider and the offending
vehicle instead of being driven towards the other side of the divider, was coming in the
wrong lane and hit him. He was cross examined by the owner and the Insurance Company.
The Tribunal has recorded a finding that his testimony was unshakable and no such fact has
emerged from the cross examination to doubt his testimony. PW.2 Anwar Khan also
corroborated the factum of accident caused by the offending truck. He stated that truck was
being driven on the wrong side of the road and crushed the left leg of the claimant and both
his testicles were severed. He categorically stated that he was present at the site of the
accident and a large number of vehicles were moving and all the four lanes were
operational. First information report of the incident was lodged by the father of the claimant
on 4.5.2015 against the offending truck and the Police after investigation submitted a charge
sheet.

9. Relying upon the oral testimony of the injured himself, eye-witnesses and the
documentary evidence and also upon the site plan, the Tribunal returned a finding that the
offending truck coming from Jhansi was not being driven in its lane but on the opposite side
of the lane for going from Jhansi to Kanpur and hit the claimant. The Tribunal did not accept
the contention of the owner of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company that delay in
lodging the first information report, cast a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the
accident.

10. In so far as issue nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the Tribunal on the basis of
documentary evidence held that the driver of the offending truck having a valid driving
license and the truck was duly insured with the Insurance Company.

11. While deciding issue no.4 relating to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the
basis of the school certificate of the claimant found his age to be 15 years and treated his
notional income to be Rs.5,000/- per month. Tribunal further finding that his complete left
leg has been amputated and both his testicles has been severed, thus, he has suffered
disability to the extent of 90%. Applying multiplier of 18 in accordance with the age of the
claimant the Tribunal determined a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- as compensation. As against the
claim of Rs.3.00 lakh towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amzad Khan & Ors.
593
Rs.2,25,000/- under the said head on the basis of bills and vouchers which were found to be
duly certified but proved.

12. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh towards future prospects and for
loss of married life, Rs.50,000/- towards physical and mental pain, Rs.20,000/- towards
special diet and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance. In this manner, the Tribunal determined a
total sum of Rs.16,85,000/- as compensation.

13. The first submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that finding of
the Tribunal that the claimant was aged 15 years is against the pleadings in the claim
petition where the age is shown to be 13 years and the multiplier of 18 has wrongly been
applied and according to the schedule, a multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied.

14. In so far as determination of the age of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal
found that in the claim petition, the age was described as 13 years whereas in the bedhead
ticket and the disability certificate he was shown to be 14 years and in the mark sheet his
date of birth was entered as 20th May 2001, the Tribunal appears to have taken out mean
and determined age of the claimant to be 15 years. We do not find any illegality in the same.

15. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the
multiplier of 15 to be applied in accordance with the schedule is also not liable to be
accepted inasmuch as in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and others, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (S.C.), Hon'ble Apex Court after considering
the multiplier scale in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.), 1994 (2) SCC 176, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996 (4) SCC, 362
and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Charlie and others, 2005 (10) SCC 720, as
also the multiplier specified in second column in the table in second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, set out a chart in Paragraph 19 of the report prescribing multiplier to be
applied in different age groups. The Apex Court further in paragraph 21 of the report
observed as under :-

"We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in
Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20
and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years,
M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46
to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e. M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9
for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

16. According to chart set out in the case of Sarla Verma and others, multiplier to be
applied between 15 to 20 years as contained in Column (4) is 18 and thus the Tribunal has
committed no error in applying the said multiplier.
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. The next submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is since the
disability certificate was not proved by producing the Doctor hence, it was not admissible in
evidence and the Tribunal committed illegality in placing reliance in a document which was
not in admissible.

18. Admittedly, the disability certificate was issued by the office of the Chief Medical
Officer, Jhansi duly certified by the Medical Board constituted to examine the claimant. The
certificate states that the claimant is a case of hip articulation (4) and the disability was of a
permanent nature to the extent of 90%.

19. Second limb of the same argument is that even though the disability certificate only
certified 90% disability, the Tribunal has wrongly proceeded to determine the compensation
treating it to be 100% disability.

20. The document is a public document and the contents of the same were not required
to be proved in view of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. It may also be relevant to quote the
observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of
India and others, 1989 (III) SLVR-137, describing the necessity of calling the Doctor only
when it is necessary by making following observation :-

"We also hope and trust that our law courts will not summon a medical
professional to give evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even men in this
profession are not made to wait and waste time unnecessarily and it is known that our law
courts always have respect for the men in the medical profession and they are called to give
evidence when necessary and attempts are made so that they may not have to wait for long.
We have no hesitation in saying that it is expected of the members of the legal profession
which is the other honourable profession to honour the persons in the medical profession
and see that they are not called to give evidence so long as it is not necessary."

21. In view of the provisions of Section 77 of the Evidence Act providing that the
contents of public documents need not be proved by calling witness and the observations of
the Apex Court there was no necessity to prove the disability certificate by calling the
Doctor, the document was admissible and the Tribunal committed no illegality in placing
reliance upon the same.

22. Though the disability certificate only was to the extent of 90% disability, but we
must not forget that not only the claimant lost his left leg completely but also both of his
testicles were severed and thus he would not be able to live a normal marital life, having
children and a family. No amount of monetary compensation can be said to be sufficient to
compensate for this loss. This would be a case of exceptional circumstance to treat the
disability to be 100% as held by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s
Pest Control of India Pvt. Ltd., 1995 Vol.1 AWC 39 (S.C.).

23. In view of above, we do not find any illegality in the award of the Tribunal treating
the disability to be 100%. We also do not find any illegality in the notional income of the
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amzad Khan & Ors.
595
deceased to be Rs.5,000/- and the same does not appear to be excessive and high as
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another,
2014 (3) TAC-5 (S.C.), which was also a case of disability of a student caused by an
accident found that notional income of Rs.6,000/- determined by the Tribunal for purpose of
awarding compensation is too meagre. Relying upon the facts and circumstances and the law
laid down in the case of Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, 2013, Vol.1 TAC-369, held
Rs.10,000/- monthly notional income for computation of just and reasonable compensation
under the head of loss of income.

25. In such view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the Tribunal proceeding
to fix the notional income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month.

26. It may be relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another, 2010
(10) SCC-254, at this stage. While considering the plea for enhancement of compensation
by students of final year engineering who suffered 70% disability in the motor accident, it
was observed as under :-

"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 in so far 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."

27. Again in this connection in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another,
2011 (1) SCC-343, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-

"8. 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 accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical
disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with
reference to the whole body, or more often than not, 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%."

28. The aforesaid observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar
(supra), was reiterated in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company
Ltd., 2012 (1) TAC-1 (S.C.), by observing as under :-

"14. 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. 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;
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amzad Khan & Ors.
597

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

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.

15. In our view, the principles of law laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra V. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be
followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of
compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or
temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should
always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and
treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."

29. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the claimant-respondent who was
an active boy of 15 years has not only lost complete left leg but will be also unable to live
marital life and have a family. It is really difficult in this background to assess the amount of
compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him for having become a life long
handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore a physical frame of the claimant. The
claimant-respondent because of the accident also stands deprived of the enjoyment of life,
having children and a family as well as the marital prospects as already observed. No
amount of compensation can be said to be sufficient for such a loss but still a methodology
is required to be applied for determination of compensation in such cases and there cannot
be any rigid test which should be applied in all situation.

30. This being the position, in the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do not
find any illegality either in the methodology adopted by the Tribunal for determining the
compensation nor there is only procedural error committed during the process. However, the
question of enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if any, raised by the
claimant shall be open and considered in case any appeal is filed by the claimant-
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent, but in so for as the present appeal of the Insurance Company is concerned, the
challenge to the award on the grounds raised, in our considered opinion, is liable to fail.

31. The appeal is devoid of merits and thus accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2011

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

First Appeal No. - 270 Of 2011

Devendra Kumar Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Mau ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant:
Shri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mukesh Prasad

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shri Anil Kumar Singh

Proceedings

This First Appeal under Rule 49 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat (Election of
Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Disputes) Rules, 1994 has been preferred challenging
the judgment and order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court
No. 1, Mau, whereby Election Petition No. 8 of 2010 was dismissed with cost on the ground that the
same was not presented in person as required under Rule 35(2) of the aforesaid Rules.

Procedure
The election petition was presented on 23.12.2010 questioning the election to the post of Pramukh. A
specific objection regarding improper presentation was raised in the written statement. Issues were
framed on 25.05.2011 and hearing was concluded on 06.07.2011. After conclusion of arguments, the
petitioner filed an affidavit on 13.07.2011 asserting his presence at the time of presentation. However,
the trial court dismissed the petition on 27.07.2011 holding it to be not maintainable due to noncompliance of Rule 35(2) of the Rules, leading to the present appeal.

Penal Sections

Rule 35(2) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs
and Settlement of Disputes) Rules, 1994
Rule 38 of the Rules
Rule 42 and Rule 43 of the Rules
Section 5, Section 6 and Section 7
Section 237 and Section 264-B of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961
Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India