# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Mohd. Iliyas & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1091
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-29
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 163 of 2001
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-mohd-iliyas-anr-46511
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim petition -
comprehensive policy / package policy -
Liability of insurer - comprehensive/package
policy distinct from Act policy or third party
policy - Occupant in car and pillion rider of
scooter/motor
cycle
are
covered
under
comprehensive policy - comprehensive policy /
package policy of two wheeler covers the risk
of the pillion rider as much as it does of the
rider/ insured - Insurer can hardly wriggle out
of their liability to indemnify & satisfy the
award (Para 22, 23 )

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -
Claim petition - Non registration of FIR -
claimant's failure to lodge an information with
the Police - Effect - claimant entered the
witness-box and proved his case - rider also
proved the factum of accident - After the
claimant and the rider, both testified to the
factum of accident, its time, place and the
manner of occurrence, burden lay upon the
Insurer to rebut by cogent evidence that the
accident
never
happened
in
the
manner
described - mere absence of an FIR would not
shroud an accident under any kind of doubt - It
is well-nigh settled that mere non-registration
of an FIR concerning the accident, would not
be decisive about the accident ever happening
(Para 15, 16 )

Dismissed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

## Text

11 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Iliyas & Anr.
1091

17. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1091
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 163 of 2001

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Iliyas & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anand Mohan, Asit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
D.K. Agarwal

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim petition -
comprehensive policy / package policy -
Liability of insurer - comprehensive/package
policy distinct from Act policy or third party
policy - Occupant in car and pillion rider of
scooter/motor
cycle
are
covered
under
comprehensive policy - comprehensive policy /
package policy of two wheeler covers the risk
of the pillion rider as much as it does of the
rider/ insured - Insurer can hardly wriggle out
of their liability to indemnify & satisfy the
award (Para 22, 23 )

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -
Claim petition - Non registration of FIR -
claimant's failure to lodge an information with
the Police - Effect - claimant entered the
witness-box and proved his case - rider also
proved the factum of accident - After the
claimant and the rider, both testified to the
factum of accident, its time, place and the
manner of occurrence, burden lay upon the
Insurer to rebut by cogent evidence that the
accident
never
happened
in
the
manner
described - mere absence of an FIR would not
shroud an accident under any kind of doubt - It
is well-nigh settled that mere non-registration
of an FIR concerning the accident, would not
be decisive about the accident ever happening
(Para 15, 16 )

Dismissed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on :

1. National Insurance Company Vs Balakrishnan &
anr., (2013) (1) SCC 731

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an Appeal by the Insurer from an
award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sitapur, under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition, giving
rise to this Appeal, being Motor Accident Claim
Petition no.325 of 1995 was instituted on
25.12.1997 before the District Judge/ Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur by Mohd.
Iliyas, respondent no.1 to this Appeal. Pankaj
Shukla, the second respondent here, and the
New India Assurance Co. Limited, were arrayed
as the two opposite parties to the claim petition.
The New India Assurance Co. Limited is the
appellant here.

2. As facts would show in greater detail,
Pankaj Shukla, respondent no.2 here, was
operating the motor scooter, with whom
respondent no.1, Mohd. Iliyas, the claimant was
a pillion rider, when the vehicle met with the
accident, giving rise to this claim. The claimantrespondent no.1 sustained serious injuries in the
accident and claimed compensation under
various heads, which has been granted by the
Tribunal vide the award impugned. Since the
appellant was the Insurer, who had insured the
two wheeler that the two respondents were
riding, they have been ordered to indemnify and
satisfy the award. That is what has led the
Insurance Company to prefer the present
Appeal.

3. Mohd. Iliyas, the claimant-respondent
no.1, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimant', whereas Pankaj Shukla, the second
respondent, who was operating the scooter, that
met with the accident, shall hereinafter be
referred to as 'the rider'. The appellant, New
India Assurance Co. Limited, shall hereinafter
be called 'the Insurer'.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, on May
the 4th, 1997 the claimant was riding pillion
with the rider on the latter's scooter, bearing
registration no. UP 34A 5623. Both these men
are employees of the District Court, Sitapur. At
about 9:45 a.m. as the scooter, carrying the
two, approached the Bus Stand at Sitapur, the
scooter swerved, to prevent a collision with a
rickshaw that suddenly appeared from the left
hand side. In consequence, the scooter hit a
truck on its backside, causing both the rider and
the claimant to be thrown to the ground. The
scooter, of course, had tripped. In consequence,
the claimant sustained serious injuries, that are
indicated to be four fractures in the pelvis and
rupture of the urethra. He had a long and repeat
stay in hospitals, in a non-ambulatory condition
for three months and suffered extreme physical
pain. He had to attend the call of nature while
being on his bed. The claimant had to undergo
prolonged treatment and multiple surgical
procedures, involving substantial expenditure
in the treatment. The accident, according to the
medical certification, has left the claimant
permanently impotent. The claimant instituted
the
claim
petition,
as
already
detailed
hereinbefore, asking the rider and the Insurer to
pay him
compensation
in
the sum of
Rs.5,75,150/-. These expenses have been
claimed under thirteen different heads, set out
in paragraph no.22 of the claim petition. There
is a detailed statement of the medical
management, hospitalization, non-ambulatory
period when the claimant was bed ridden and
the repeat surgery that the claimant had to
undergo,
besides
a
future
darkened
by
impotency
and
a
prolonged
medical
supervision; may be life long.

5. The rider put in a written statement,
saying that the accident did not take place due to
his negligence. It happened because of the
sudden appearance of the rickshaw on the wrong
side, and a collision with it had to be prevented.
It was pleaded that he held a valid driving
licence and his vehicle was duly insured with the
Insurer. The compensation, if any payable, had
to be borne by the Insurer.

6. The Insurer put in their written
statement, traversing the claim. It was pleaded
that the claim was not verifiable, inasmuch as
there was no site-plan. No cause of action had
arisen against the Insurer. The rider had not
intimated the Insurer of the accident. The claim
petition was based on false and concocted facts
in order to wrench compensation from the
Insurer. It was also said that they would have
been liable, if the vehicle was insured and that
the policy had not been disclosed. It was also
said that if the rider did not have a valid driving
licence, they would not be liable. The further
case was that the claimant had to establish his
case by documentary evidence. An objection
was also taken that the truck owner and the
driver were not impleaded, and, therefore, the
claim was bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. It was also the Insurer's case that the
scooter was not being operated according to the
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

7. On the pleadings of parties, the
following issues were framed by the Tribunal
(translated into English from Hindi):

"(1) Whether on 04.05.1997 at 9:45
a.m. near the Bus Stand at Sitapur, the scooter
bearing Registration No. UP 34A 5623 met with
an accident involving a truck and the claimant
received injuries in the accident?

(2) Whether the accident happened
because of both the drivers driving the vehicles
at high speed and negligently? If yes, its effect?
11 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Iliyas & Anr.
1093

(3) Whether on account of non-joinder
of the truck owner, driver and the truck insurer,
the claim is bad for non-joinder?

(4) Whether the two vehicles were
insured and operated according to the terms of
the insurance policy?

(5) Whether the drivers of the two
vehicles had valid and effective driving licences
at the time of the accident? If yes, its effect?

(6) To what amount of compensation
is the claimant entitled?"

8. The claimant examined himself in
support of his claim as PW-1, besides another
Raja Bux Sngh as PW-2. On behalf of the
opposite parties to the claim petition, the rider
examined himself as OPW-1. The claimant
filed voluminous documentary evidence, which
includes X-ray reports, treatment cards of
various
doctors
and
specialist
doctors,
discharge slips from hospitals, nursing home
discharge slips, case-sheets from hospitals,
nursing home bills and cash memos of the
medicines purchased, ambulance bills and
receipts, bills and payment receipts relating to
surgeries undergone at the Blue Cross Hospital,
Lucknow, the information given to the Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.), with whom the claimant was
working as a Munsarim, the order of the
District Judge, sanctioning him an advance
from the GPF, the claimant's salary certificate
and
report
of
the
Medical
Board,
recommending special medical leave for the
claimant. There is a very detailed description of
all this documentary evidence set out in the
impugned award, which need not be further
listed, except where the relevant document is
required to be referred to. The Insurance
Company, as part of their documentary
evidence, filed their surveyor's report, the
rider's driving licence, the insurance cover
note/ policy. The rider, for his part, filed his
driving licence, the scooter's registration
certificate and the insurance policy/ cover note.

9. On issues nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal,
after an extensive review of evidence and the
law applicable, held that the accident took
place on the date, time and place alleged,
involving the scooter and the truck. Both the
drivers were rash and negligent, but the rider of
the scooter was largely guilty of negligent
driving. The Tribunal found contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the truck
and the rider of the scooter, apportioning the
liability between them as 20% and 80%
respectively. The truck driver, its owner or
insurer could not be found, and, therefore, issue
no.3 was also answered in favour of the
claimant by holding that to the extent of
contributory negligence found for the driver of
the truck, the claimant would be deprived of the
compensation that he could recover from the
owner, the driver or the insurer of the truck.

10. Issue no.4 was decided in the manner
that it was held that the truck having escaped
traceless with no identity about its owner, driver
or insurer known, it would be assumed that it
was insured.

11. The fifth issue was decided in the
manner that the rider had filed his driving
licence, which was found to be valid on the date
of the accident and the Insurer could not dispel
the validity of the licence. About the truck, it
was said that there was no licence lodged on
behalf of the truck driver or the owner, and,
therefore, it would be assumed that he had no
valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

12. On the sixth issue, the Tribunal did a
minute
examination
of
the
compensation
claimed under various heads, with reference to
the documentary evidence and held, under
different heads, that the claimant was entitled to
a total compensation of Rs.1,98,300/-. Of this
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount, 80% would be payable to the claimant
because he would lose 20% that was the
apportioned share of the negligent truck driver,
who could not be located or brought before the
Tribunal. Thus, the liability of the Insurer would
be 80% of Rs.1,98,300/- payable with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum reckoned from the
date of presentation of the claim.

13. Heard Mr. Asit Srivastava, learned
Counsel for the appellant in support of this
Appeal. No on appears on behalf of the
respondents.

14. It must be remarked that the claimant
has not raised any issue about the finding on the
point
of
contributory
negligence
and
apportionment of liability between the two
vehicles, to wit, the scooter and the fugitive
truck. In substance, therefore, whatever be the
law about the right of the claimant to recover
compensation, where one of the vehicles cannot
be
identified,
and
there
is
contributory
negligence held with apportionment, the case
here is limited to judging the validity of the
award made by the Tribunal, for whatever it is.

15. So far as the factum of accident, its
date, time and place is concerned, it has been
sought to be assailed on the basis of the
claimant's failure to lodge an information with
the Police or to summon the GD Entry from
Police Station, Kotwali, Sitapur about the
accident. It has been emphasized that the
claimant's father was a Munsarim in the Civil
Court, and so is the claimant. They are men well
acquainted with legal procedures and ought to
have lodged a First Information Report. The
suggestion is that the claimant received the
injuries in question in some other motor accident
or under different circumstances, not involving
the insured vehicle. The claimant has entered the
witness-box and proved his case. The rider, who
was examined as OPW-1, has also proved the
factum of accident. The mere absence of an FIR
would not shroud an accident of this magnitude
under any kind of doubt. After the claimant and
the rider, both testified to the factum of accident,
its time, place and the manner of occurrence,
burden lay upon the Insurer to rebut by cogent
evidence that the accident never happened in the
manner described.

16. The Insurer has not led any evidence to
dispel the factum of accident or its time, place
and manner of occurrence. In the absence of any
evidence produced by the Insurer, the findings
of the Tribunal about the accident have to be
upheld. It is well-nigh settled that mere nonregistration of an FIR concerning the accident,
would not be decisive about the accident ever
happening. It was a non-fatal accident, where the
claimant was severely injured and the rider was
rash and negligent. Both are employees of the
Civil Court, Sitapur. If they have chosen not to
lodge an FIR about the accident, where the rider
dashed against the truck from the backside, there
is nothing so unnatural about their failure that
may detract from the truth of the accident or its
time, place and manner of occurrence.

17. There is some evidence that
information was given to the police station by
the claimant's brother, who serves in a foreign
country, on account of which, a copy of that
information could not be produced. The fact that
the Police did not register that information is
also not of much consequence, inasmuch as
invariably informations about accidents, where
one party is not out to prosecute the other, are
often not registered as crimes. The Tribunal, in
the opinion of this Court, has rightly believed
the accident to have happened in the manner and
on the date, time and place as alleged by the
claimant; and not disputed by the rider. The
finding about the rider being negligent and rash
while operating his scooter is also far from
exceptionable.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant has not raised much issue about the
said finding, though he says that the truck driver
11 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Iliyas & Anr.
1095
ought to have been held liable for more
contribution to the negligence, because he was
operating the larger vehicle. We do not think so.
The manner, in which the accident took place, is
not a very complex episode. It appears that some
rickshaw suddenly appeared on the scene when
the scooter operated by the rider and pillion
ridden by the claimant was moving towards the
Sitapur Bus Stand. In order to save the rickshaw
from being hit by the scooter, the rider swerved
to one side. That sent the vehicle on the path of
accident, leading it to dash on to the rear side of
the unknown truck.

18. From these facts, the Tribunal has
inferred that the rider was driving rashly and
negligently.
This
finding
appears
to
be
unexceptionable. The reason is that careful
driving envisages the foresight of another's
foolishness or incompetence on the road. A
careful driver has to operate his vehicle in the
manner that he can avert an accident,
notwithstanding another's mistake or negligence.
This is, particularly, true of the road conditions
in small towns, where rule of the road and other
niceties of traffic management do not come to
the aid of a disciplined driver or check the
recalcitrant one. The road conditions in small
towns, unregulated by traffic signals, are a
multi-dimensional movement of vehicles or
traffic, with a mix of all kinds of mobile entities
on the same pathway. It could include
pedestrians, very slow moving vehicles and the
presence of animals as well. A driver who
chooses to operate his vehicle in this kind of
traffic has to condition his driving instincts, and,
particularly, regulate his speed to a degree where
an unexpected movement by another may be
negotiated to avert an accident.

19. What would be careful driving in the
regulated conditions of a metropolis may not be
so in a small mofassil town. The rider in this
case, assessing from what appears in evidence,
seems to have committed the mistake of moving
at a speed that prevented him from bringing his
vehicle to a halt or negotiate to safety, when the
rickshaw suddenly appeared on the wrong side.
The speed of the scooter was certainly so much,
that the sudden appearance of the rickshaw
caused the driver to swerve and dash his twowheeler on the rear side of the truck. This is
certainly a case, where the rider was largely
negligent and responsible for the accident. There
is no case that the accident occurred because the
truck had suddenly applied brakes, bringing the
bigger vehicle to a halt. The accident was
perpetuated by the unforeseen intrusion of the
rickshaw. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the
Insurer, Mr. Srivastava is not right in his
submission that the bigger vehicle ought to have
been apportioned with more liability towards
contributory negligence.

20. So far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, this Court has gone through the
documents relating to the treatment that the
claimant received. No doubt, he has suffered
debilitating fracture to his pelvic bone and
rupture of the urethra. He has undergone
multiple surgical operations in various hospitals
at Lucknow. He has turned impotent in
consequence of the accident, of which there is a
certificate on record from Dr. Rajeshwar
Krishnan of Blue Cross Hospital, Faizabad
Road, Maha Nagar, Lucknow, paper no. 17ग/30.
There is no reason to disbelieve the said
certificate. Quite apart, there are consistent
records about the repeat surgical procedures
undergone by the claimant at the Blue Cross
Hospital, Lucknow and the treatment that he had
received at Neera Nursing Home, Mahanagar
Extension, Lucknow. The case-sheets relating to
that treatment and the medicines administered,
while an indoor, are there. Of foremost
importance is Paper No. 60ग, which is a copy of
the report of the Divisional Medical Board,
Lucknow, comprising three Senior Government
Doctors. The report certifies that the claimant
was examined and found to be a case of urethral
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispersion with fracture in the pelvis. The
aforesaid Medical Board, by their report dated
27.08.1997
(paper
no.60ग)
recommended
sanction of special medical leave to the
claimant. There is also on record paper
no.16ग1/59 and 16ग/60, which are orders dated
05.07.1997 and 17.07.1997 passed by the
District Judge of Sitapur, sanctioning Earned
Leave and Medical Leave to the claimant. By
the order dated 05.07.1997, the learned District
Judge sanctioned Earned Leave from 01.07.1997
to
31.07.1997
and
by
the
order
dated
17.09.1997, medical leave on full average pay
was sanctioned, from 01.08.1997 to 31.10.1997.
There are tomes of medical bills and receipts,
apart from medical reports, that go to show the
extensive nature of injuries and the consequent
pain and suffering the claimant has evidently
suffered. The Insurer has not brought on record
any evidence to dispel the truth of these well
connected and sequenced documents, evidencing
the medical procedures and treatment undergone
by the claimant. The Insurer cannot, therefore,
dispute the validity of the various medical
records by insisting that these records have not
been proved by examining the various doctors,
who have been involved in treating the claimant
across a protracted period of time.

21. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has
awarded him compensation, marshalled into
different heads, on a modest scale. It is by no
means extravagant, as the learned Counsel for the
Insurer urges.

22. There is one point that was, particularly,
argued with much emphasis by Mr. Asit
Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Insurer. He
submitted that the Insurance Policy did not cover
the risk of the pillion rider. Evidently, this point
was not urged before the Tribunal and no issue
was framed about it. Nevertheless, this Court has
looked into the xerox copy of the Insurance Policy,
that is on record as Paper No. 18ग/28. The
Insurance Policy covers the risk of any person,
including the insurer. The policy is clearly a
comprehensive policy or what is called, in current
times, as package policy. A policy of this kind, in
our opinion, covers the risk of the pillion rider as
much as it does of the rider/ insured. It was not
disputed before this Court that the policy involved
in this case is a comprehensive policy/ package
policy. It is not a mere Act policy or a third party
policy. The position about the occupants in a car or
a pillion rider on a two wheeler, where the policy
is a comprehensive/ package policy, is well settled
in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company v. Balakrishnan
& another, (2013) (1) SCC 731. In National
Insurance
Company
v.
Balakrishnan
&
another, it has been held:

"24. It is extremely important to note
here that till 31-12-2006 the Tariff Advisory
Committee and, thereafter, from 1-1-2007 IRDA
functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities
and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as
the terms and conditions of the policies issued
by all insurance companies. The High Court had
issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee
and IRDA to explain the factual position as
regards the liability of the insurance companies
in respect of an occupant in a private car under
the "comprehensive/package policy". Before the
High Court, the competent authority of IRDA
had stated that on 2-6-1986, the Tariff Advisory
Committee had issued instructions to all the
insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of
a scooter/motorcycle under the "comprehensive
policy" and the said position continues to be in
vogue till date. It had also admitted that the
"comprehensive policy" is presently called a
"package policy". It is the admitted position, as
the decision would show, the earlier Circulars
dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 continue to be
valid and effective and all insurance companies
are bound to pay the compensation in respect of
the liability towards an occupant in a car under
the
"comprehensive/
package
policy"
11 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Iliyas & Anr.
1097
irrespective of the terms and conditions
contained in the policy. The competent authority
of IRDA was also examined before the High
Court who stated that the Circulars dated 18-31978 and 2-6-1986 of the Tariff Advisory
Committee were incorporated in the Indian
Motor Tariff effective from 1-7-2002 and they
continue to be operative and binding on the
insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid
factual position, the Circulars dated 16-11-2009
and 3-12-2009, that have been reproduced
hereinabove, were issued.

25. It is also worthy to note that the
High Court, after referring to individual circulars
issued
by
various
insurance
companies,
eventually stated [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] thus:
(Yashpal Luthra case [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] ,
ACJ p. 1424, para 27)

"27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear
that the comprehensive/ package policy of a
two-wheeler
covers
a
pillion
rider
and
comprehensive/package policy of a private car
covers the occupants and where the vehicle is
covered under a comprehensive/package policy,
there is no need for the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal to go into the question whether the
insurance company is liable to compensate for
the death or injury of a pillion rider on a twowheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact,
in view of the TAC's directives and those of the
IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and
ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it
was done in the present case."

26. In view of the aforesaid factual
position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a
"comprehensive/package policy" would cover
the liability of the insurer for payment of
compensation for the occupant in a car. There is
no cavil that an "Act policy" stands on a
different
footing
from
a
"comprehensive/package
policy".
As
the
circulars have made the position very clear and
IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority,
has commanded the insurance companies stating
that a "comprehensive/package policy" covers
the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that
regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier
pronouncements were rendered in respect of the
"Act policy" which admittedly cannot cover a
third-party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if
the policy is a "comprehensive/package policy",
the liability would be covered. These aspects
were not noticed in Bhagyalakshmi [(2009) 7
SCC 148 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3
SCC (Cri) 321] and, therefore, the matter was
referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to
think that there is no necessity to refer the
present matter to a larger Bench as IRDA, which
is presently the statutory authority, has clarified
the position by issuing circulars which have
been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi
High Court and we have also reproduced the
same."

23. In this view of the matter, the Insurer
can hardly wriggle out of their liability to satisfy
the award.

24. In the result, the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs. The interim order dated
19.09.2001 is hereby vacated.

25. It is further directed that in case
accounts of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
have been assigned to the newly established
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the learned
District Judge, Sitapur and the learned Presiding
Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sitapur shall together take necessary steps for
disbursement of compensation to the claimant.

26. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Sitapur
through the learned District Judge, Sitapur and
to the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sitapur by the Senior Registrar.
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2021)12ILR A1098
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 443 of 2006

Karan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Mandaliya Prabandhak, National Insurance Co.
Muzaffar Nagar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri N.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, Sri
R.P. Ram, Sri S.M.Upadhyay, Sri Shyam Murari
Upadhyay, Smt Archana Singh, Sri Sudhir Dixit,
Ms. Manjima Singh, Ms. Pragya Pandey.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 & 173
- Compensation - Enhancement - Income of
deceased - income of deceased Rs. 3500/- per
month which he earned from work in Bartiks
Courier - Tribunal presumed his notional
income as Rs. 15,000/-p.a - Held - Court
assessed notional income of deceased to be Rs.
100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month which
amounts to Rs. 36,000/- p.a. - Future Prospect
- age of the deceased being between 21-25
years at the time of accident an additional
amount of 40 % be added to the income as
future
prospect
-
Personal
Expenses
-
deduction in the head of personal expenses of
the deceased who was bachelor at the time of
accident : 50 % - Multiplier - Tribunal wrongly
applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of
parents - multiplier of 18 should be applied
because the age of deceased was between 2125 years at the time of accident - conventional
head - conventional head namely loss of estate
and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15000/-
and 15000/- respectively - aforesaid amount
should be enhanced @ 10 % in every three
years
-
Since,
deceased
was
unmarried,
therefore, no amount in the head of loss of
consortium can be given - claimants/appellants
shall be entitled to 7% simple interest from the
date of filing of application till the date of
actual payment (Para 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21 )

Partly Allowed. (E-5)

Cases Relied on:

1. Mohd. Unus Vs Rais Najnien Begum & ors.
2015(2)TAC526

2. St. of Har. & anr. Vs Jasbir Kaur & ors. (2003)7
SCC 484

3. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Tranport Corporation &
anr., (2009)6SCC 121

4. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors., 2017 5 Supreme(SC) 1050

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel
for appellant as well as Ms. Manjima Singh,
Advocate holding brief of Ms. Archana Singh,
learned counsel for Insurance Company and
perused the record.

2. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor
Vehicles
Act
has
been
filed
by
the
claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and
award
dated
08.11.2005
passed
by
the
Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T., Court No.
6, Aligarh by which a sum of Rs. 85,000/- along
with 6% interest has been awarded as
compensation on account of death of deceased.

3. Facts in brief are that an application
under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act was filed
by the claimant/appellant seeking compensation
to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 12 % interest
alleging that on 15.09.2000, deceased Vivek
Kumar Singh son of appellant was traveling by
bus bearing no. UP14B2331 from Delhi, as it
arrived in the limit of police station Gabhana, a
truck bearing no. H.N.V.9465 coming from