# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Smt Jyoti & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 220 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-10-27 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2459 of 2025 - **Bench:** Sandeep Jain - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-smt-jyoti-ors-52644 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed any legal or factual error in determining the number of dependents and awarding consortium and other heads of compensation particularly in treating each dependent as a full unit and granting consortium of ₹40,000/- per claimant such that the impugned judgment and award dated 08.08.2025 warranted interference u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act at the instance of the insurer. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220 - A - The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 15.01.2023 on the Milak-Bilaspur Road, District Rampur, wherein Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 27 10 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt Jyoti & Ors. 221 years and employed as a delivery boy earning approximately ₹11,000 per month, was driving his motorcycle when he was struck from behind by a Maruti Eco car, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing him grievous injuries for which he was hospitalized at Navodaya Hospital, Bareilly, from 15.01.2023 until his death on 18.01.2023, his dependents thereafter filed Motor Accident Claim Petition and the Tribunal, assessing his income on the basis of minimum wages and applying appropriate deductions, multiplier, future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, treatment charges and consortium, awarded compensation of ₹23,98,774 with 7% interest against which the insurer preferred the instant appeal challenging the determination of dependents and award of consortium. Held: In the instant case, there are four dependents of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, one is widow Smt. Jyoti, his two minor sons Shreyansh and Shivay Gangwar and his mother Smt. Laxmi Devi - The Tribunal has awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to all the four claimants which cannot be said to be erroneous, keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (infra) - Thus, appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed. [Paras 9, 10] (E-13) Case Law Cited National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017), 16 SCC 680; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Shukla and others, (2021) 20 SCC 800 - referred to Smt. Sarla Verma (SMT) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 - relied on List of Acts Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 List of Keywords S. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Compensation; Interest @ 7% per annum; Untimely death, Rash and negligent driving; Deceased; Dependents; Minimum wages; Treatment; Grievous injuries; Future prospects; Deducted 1/4th amount towards self-expenses; Multiplier; Funeral expenses; Loss of estate; Consortium; Treatment expenses; Minor dependent; Single unit; Statutory instrument; Spousal consortium; Parental consortium; Filial consortium; dismissed at the admission stage; affirmed; statutory deposit Case Arising From APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal from Order No. - 2459 of 2025 From the Judgment and Award dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rampur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.57 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhinav Shukla Adv. for the Respondents: ## Text 220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Court in The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Dilurai MAC Application No.10 of 2018, decided on 4.4.2022 and Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Maya 2017(8) ADJ 92. 19. A perusal of the judgment of learned Single Judge in Smt. Jagdish Kumari's case (supra), which has taken a different view than what has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala's, Deepal Girishbhai Soni's, Gurumallamma's and Sunil Kumar's cases (supra), shows that it had not considered the aforesaid judgments and held even for assessment of compensation under Section 163A, instead of structured formula, normal assessment is to be made. Whereas in Asif's case (supra), the learned Single Judge, after placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, had granted compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided in Second Schedule attached to the Act. 21. It is apparent that in the above judgment of the Division Bench, the effect of Rule 220-A of the Rules of 1998, the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra) and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd.(supra) has not been considered. The judgment also does not deal with grant of compensation under non pecuniary heads in claim petition filed u/s 163A of 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the tribunal has not erred in awarding total compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants, warranting interference from this Court in exercise of it?s appellate jurisdiction. 23. Accordingly, this appeal is meritless and is dismissed at the admission stage. The impugned judgment and award of the tribunal dated 16.06.2025 is affirmed. 24. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the tribunal concerned, forthwith. ---------- (2025) 10 ILRA 220 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. First Appeal From Order No. 2459 of 2025 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt Jyoti & Ors. ... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Abhinav Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed any legal or factual error in determining the number of dependents and awarding consortium and other heads of compensation particularly in treating each dependent as a full unit and granting consortium of ₹40,000/- per claimant such that the impugned judgment and award dated 08.08.2025 warranted interference u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act at the instance of the insurer. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220 - A - The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 15.01.2023 on the Milak-Bilaspur Road, District Rampur, wherein Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 27 10 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt Jyoti & Ors. 221 years and employed as a delivery boy earning approximately ₹11,000 per month, was driving his motorcycle when he was struck from behind by a Maruti Eco car, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing him grievous injuries for which he was hospitalized at Navodaya Hospital, Bareilly, from 15.01.2023 until his death on 18.01.2023, his dependents thereafter filed Motor Accident Claim Petition and the Tribunal, assessing his income on the basis of minimum wages and applying appropriate deductions, multiplier, future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, treatment charges and consortium, awarded compensation of ₹23,98,774 with 7% interest against which the insurer preferred the instant appeal challenging the determination of dependents and award of consortium. Held: In the instant case, there are four dependents of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, one is widow Smt. Jyoti, his two minor sons Shreyansh and Shivay Gangwar and his mother Smt. Laxmi Devi - The Tribunal has awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to all the four claimants which cannot be said to be erroneous, keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (infra) - Thus, appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed. [Paras 9, 10] (E-13) Case Law Cited National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017), 16 SCC 680; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Shukla and others, (2021) 20 SCC 800 - referred to Smt. Sarla Verma (SMT) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 - relied on List of Acts Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 List of Keywords S. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Compensation; Interest @ 7% per annum; Untimely death, Rash and negligent driving; Deceased; Dependents; Minimum wages; Treatment; Grievous injuries; Future prospects; Deducted 1/4th amount towards self-expenses; Multiplier; Funeral expenses; Loss of estate; Consortium; Treatment expenses; Minor dependent; Single unit; Statutory instrument; Spousal consortium; Parental consortium; Filial consortium; dismissed at the admission stage; affirmed; statutory deposit Case Arising From APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal from Order No. - 2459 of 2025 From the Judgment and Award dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rampur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.57 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhinav Shukla Adv. for the Respondents: (Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.) 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Maruti Eco car No.UP-25DC5093 against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rampur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.57 of 2023 (Smt. Jyoti and others vs. Mahesh Pal and others), whereby for the untimely death of Sanjeev Kumar on 18.01.2023 in a motor accident that occurred on 15.01.2023, a compensation of Rs.23,98,774/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants, which is ordered to be indemnified by the appellant - insurance company. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.01.2023 at about 6:00 p.m., on the Milak-Bilaspur Road in village Tiraha, 222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES within the jurisdiction of Police Station Milak, District Rampur, the deceased Sanjeev Kumar was driving his motorcycle bearing registration number U.P.-22-AH0850 from village Dandia towards Milak after delivering goods, then the offending Maruti Eco Car No. UP-25-DC-5093, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from behind and hit the motorcycle as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries, who was admitted in Navodaya Hospital, Bareilly from 15.01.2023 to 18.01.2023 and during treatment, he died on 18.01.2023. At the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 27 years, who was working as a delivery boy in Ekam Express Company and was drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages paid to unskilled workman for the relevant time, which was Rs.9,743/- per month which comes to Rs.1,16,916/- annually. Since the deceased was below 40 years of age, the Tribunal has awarded 40% future prospects. Since, there were four dependents, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th amount towards selfexpenses, applied multiplier of 17 and has awarded Rs.16,500/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and has granted consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each to the widow, two minor sons and mother of deceased and Rs.1,18,820/- towards treatment expenses. In this way, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,98,774/- along with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants, aggrieved against which, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in concluding that there were four dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that minor dependents of the deceased should be taken as half unit each but the Tribunal has erred in taking them as a single unit. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to every claimant, which is erroneous, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017), 16 SCC 680. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted by the appellant. 5. It is true that as per Rule 220-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, where there is a minor dependent of the deceased, then it should be counted as half but as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra), which has affirmed the previous judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (SMT) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, each dependent is to be calculated as a single unit irrespective of whether he/she was major or minor. There is no differentiation in the manner, in which the dependency is to be calculated, insofar, as age of the dependents is concerned. 6. The Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Urmila Shukla and others, (2021) 20 SCC 800, has held that if an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi's case cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the rules was 10 All. Sanny Kumar & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors. 223 not put under any challenge. It was further held that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the claimants are to be awarded compensation as per the law, which is more advantageous to them, which affords better or greater benefit. 7. Since, in this case, the provisions laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as affirmed in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra) are more beneficial than the statutory provisions enacted under Rule 220-A (2)(iii) of the Rules of 1998, as such, the dependency is to be calculated on a single unit basis, irrespective of the age of the dependents. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has held that claimants are entitled to spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium and the Apex Court has awarded each claimant consortium of Rs.40,000/-. 9. In the instant case, there are four dependents of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, one is widow Smt. Jyoti, his two minor sons Shreyansh and Shivay Gangwar and his mother Smt. Laxmi Devi. The Tribunal has awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to all the four claimants which cannot be said to be erroneous, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 11. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 08.08.2025 is affirmed. 13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. ---------- (2025) 10 ILRA 223 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 913 of 2025 Sanny Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, Mr. Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari (A.G.A.) Issue for Consideration Whether housing of the detenue in the Protection Home, pursuant to the Child Welfare Committee's order is an unlawful detention Head Notes The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226, The Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 & 506 , The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012- Sections 5(j)(ii)/ 6, 94(2)- The detenue being a minor, now aged 15 years 7 months and 13 days, she cannot be set at liberty forthwith as the petitioners seek- Detenue has clearly expressed her mind that she does not wish to go back to her parents and also said that she wants to join the company of her husband, the