# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Sangeeta Devi

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 587
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-16
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1880 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-smt-sangeeta-devi-52702
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

evidence
demonstrating
the
deceased's
regular
EMI
payments
and
corresponding lifestyle indicators, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in
assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.
25,250/-
despite
the
absence
of
formal
documentary
proof,
and
consequently
determining compensation on that basis or
whether such assessment was perverse or
legally
unsustainable
so
as
to
warrant
interference by High Court in appeal u/s 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220 - A -
The case arises from a motor accident that
occurred on 08.01.2023 at about 5:00
P.M.,
when
the
deceased
aged
approximately 36 years, was travelling in
Loader from Kanpur to his residence and
the vehicle was struck from behind by the
offending D.C.M. allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner, causing the loader
to overturn and resulting in grievous
injuries to deceased who succumbed
shortly thereafter while being shifted from
the Government Hospital, Shivli to Halet
Hospital, Kanpur Nagar - The deceased,
who was the owner of the loader and was
paying a regular monthly EMI of Rs.
18,250/- for its purchase, was found by
the Tribunal to have been earning at least
Rs. 25,250/- per month, keeping in view
his financial obligations and the necessity
of supporting a family of five dependents -
Applying
a
deduction
of
one-fourth
towards
personal
expenses,
awarding
40%
future
prospects,
applying
the
multiplier 15, and granting statutory
amounts towards loss of estate, funeral
expenses, and consortium, the Tribunal
awarded
Rs.
48,56,250/-
with
7.5%
interest,
fastening
liability
upon
the
insurer, which led the Insurance Company
to file the instant appeal questioning the
income
assessment
and
quantum
of
compensation.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: In the instant case, the claimants proved
before the Tribunal that the deceased was the
owner of the loader, which was purchased on
loan, and the deceased was paying a regular
EMI of Rs. 18,250/- per month towards
repayment
of
loan
-
The
Tribunal
has
considered this aspect and further concluded
that, since there were five dependents of the
deceased, he must have been earning at least
an additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month
to sustain his family - Accordingly, the Tribunal
has assessed the total income of the deceased
as Rs. 18,250 + Rs. 7,000 = Rs. 25,250/- per
month, which cannot be said to be erroneous or
perverse, in the facts and circumstances of the
case - According to Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants were entitled
to future prospects at the rate of 50%, as he
was below 40 years of age on the date of the
accident; however, the Tribunal has awarded
future prospects only at the rate of 40%. -
Amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal cannot be reduced - Accordingly,
appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed
[Paras 7, 8, 9] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 -
referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Untimely death; Compensation; Interest @
7.5% per annum; Indemnified / indemnify; rash
and
negligent
manner;
grievous
injuries;
Referred (to hospital); Owner of the loader; EMI
payment; Dependents; Deduction of one-fourth;
Future prospects; Multiplier; Loss of estate;
Funeral expenses; Loss of consortium; Erred in
assessing compensation; Documentary proof;
Assessed income; Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998; Compensation cannot be
reduced; Statutory deposit.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 1880 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
03.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat, in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 273 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amit Singh
Adv. for the Respondent:

## Text

10 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Devi
587
allegedly committed after registration of
the first case. The bar against a second FIR
operates only where both relate to the same
incident or transaction. In this case, the test
of sameness is not satisfied. Moreover, the
present FIR was registered pursuant to the
order of the learned Magistrate under
Section 156(3) CrPC after considering the
material placed before him.

27. At this preliminary stage of
investigation, this Court is not inclined to
embark upon a detailed appreciation of
facts or evidence. The veracity of the
allegations of forgery, fabrication, and use
of false notarial seals is a matter for
investigation and, if warranted, trial.

28. Consequently, this Court finds no
ground to exercise its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction to quash the FIR and for the
reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, stands disposed of.

29. The investigation shall continue in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observation made here-in-above.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 587
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1880 of 2025

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sangeeta Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amit Singh
Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether in the face of the
claimant's
evidence
demonstrating
the
deceased's
regular
EMI
payments
and
corresponding lifestyle indicators, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in
assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.
25,250/-
despite
the
absence
of
formal
documentary
proof,
and
consequently
determining compensation on that basis or
whether such assessment was perverse or
legally
unsustainable
so
as
to
warrant
interference by High Court in appeal u/s 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220 - A -
The case arises from a motor accident that
occurred on 08.01.2023 at about 5:00
P.M.,
when
the
deceased
aged
approximately 36 years, was travelling in
Loader from Kanpur to his residence and
the vehicle was struck from behind by the
offending D.C.M. allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner, causing the loader
to overturn and resulting in grievous
injuries to deceased who succumbed
shortly thereafter while being shifted from
the Government Hospital, Shivli to Halet
Hospital, Kanpur Nagar - The deceased,
who was the owner of the loader and was
paying a regular monthly EMI of Rs.
18,250/- for its purchase, was found by
the Tribunal to have been earning at least
Rs. 25,250/- per month, keeping in view
his financial obligations and the necessity
of supporting a family of five dependents -
Applying
a
deduction
of
one-fourth
towards
personal
expenses,
awarding
40%
future
prospects,
applying
the
multiplier 15, and granting statutory
amounts towards loss of estate, funeral
expenses, and consortium, the Tribunal
awarded
Rs.
48,56,250/-
with
7.5%
interest,
fastening
liability
upon
the
insurer, which led the Insurance Company
to file the instant appeal questioning the
income
assessment
and
quantum
of
compensation.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: In the instant case, the claimants proved
before the Tribunal that the deceased was the
owner of the loader, which was purchased on
loan, and the deceased was paying a regular
EMI of Rs. 18,250/- per month towards
repayment
of
loan
-
The
Tribunal
has
considered this aspect and further concluded
that, since there were five dependents of the
deceased, he must have been earning at least
an additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month
to sustain his family - Accordingly, the Tribunal
has assessed the total income of the deceased
as Rs. 18,250 + Rs. 7,000 = Rs. 25,250/- per
month, which cannot be said to be erroneous or
perverse, in the facts and circumstances of the
case - According to Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants were entitled
to future prospects at the rate of 50%, as he
was below 40 years of age on the date of the
accident; however, the Tribunal has awarded
future prospects only at the rate of 40%. -
Amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal cannot be reduced - Accordingly,
appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed
[Paras 7, 8, 9] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 -
referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Untimely death; Compensation; Interest @
7.5% per annum; Indemnified / indemnify; rash
and
negligent
manner;
grievous
injuries;
Referred (to hospital); Owner of the loader; EMI
payment; Dependents; Deduction of one-fourth;
Future prospects; Multiplier; Loss of estate;
Funeral expenses; Loss of consortium; Erred in
assessing compensation; Documentary proof;
Assessed income; Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998; Compensation cannot be
reduced; Statutory deposit.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 1880 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
03.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat, in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 273 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amit Singh
Adv. for the Respondent:

(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 Insurance Company
of the offending vehicle D.C.M. No.UP-78GN-1291 against the impugned judgment
and award dated 03.06.2025 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanpur
Dehat, in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No. 273 of 2024 (Smt. Sangeeta Devi and
others vs. The New India Assurance
Company Ltd. and another), whereby, for
the untimely death of Haribabu in an
accident that took place on 08.01.2023, the
Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.48,56,250/- along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimants,
which has been ordered to be indemnified
by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2.
Factual
matrix
is
that
on
08.01.2023, Haribabu was travelling in a
loader No.UP-77-AT-3631 from Kanpur to
his home, then between Bairi and Baagpur,
near
Village
Sambharpur
within
the
jurisdiction
of
Police
Station
Shivli,
District Kanpur Dehat at about 5:00 P.M.,
the above vehicle was hit from behind by
the offending vehicle D.C.M. No.UP-78GN-1291, which was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner, due to which the
loader overturned and Haribabu sustained
grievous injuries, who was taken to the
Government Hospital, Shivli from where
he was referred to Halet Hospital, Kanpur
Nagar, but just after leaving Shivli
Hospital, he died. On the date of the
10 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Devi
589
accident, the deceased was about 36 years
old, who was the owner of the above loader
and was earning Rs.27,000/- per month.
The Tribunal keeping in view, that he was
paying EMI of Rs.18,250/- towards the
payment of loan taken for purchasing the
above loader, and also appreciating that
after paying the above EMI, he was at least
earning Rs.7,000/- per month in order to
sustain his family of six persons, concluded
that he was earning Rs. 18,250 + Rs. 7,000
= Rs. 25,250/- per month.

3. The Tribunal, keeping in view that
the deceased had five dependents, made a
deduction of one-fourth from the above
income, awarded future prospects at the
rate of 40%, since the deceased was aged
between 36?40 years, applied a multiplier
of 15, awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses, and Rs.
40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all,
the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.
48,56,250/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum to the claimants, which
was ordered to be indemnified by the
insurer of the aforesaid D.C.M. vehicle.

4. In view of the above factual matrix,
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company submitted that there was no
documentary proof of the income of the
deceased, as such, the Tribunal erred in
assessing the compensation on the basis of
his monthly income of Rs.25,250/-.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company, perused
the impugned judgment and the documents
submitted by the appellant with the appeal.

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1778, held as under:-

"8. Though, there is no evidence
on record regarding the income of
deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the
testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar,
Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited, it is clear that the deceased -
Pyara Singh was regularly making the
payment of Rs. 11,550/- as instalment to
discharge his loan liability towards the
tractor. At this rate, the entire loan was
paid back within a year or so. That clearly
establishes the earning capacity of the
deceased. It is also the case of the
appellants-claimants that the deceased was
working as a contractor and was earning
Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Tribunal
adopted a balanced approach and keeping
in view factors like : (i) the payment of
monthly instalment of Rs. 11,550/- towards
loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a
family comprising of wife, two minor
children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor
and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was
working as a contractor; assessed his
income at Rs. 25,000/- per month.

9. In our considered view, the
Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law
as well as on facts. In the summary
proceedings where the approach of the
Tribunal's
determination
must
be
in
conformity with the object of the welfare
legislation, it was rightly held that the
monthly income of the deceased could not
be less than Rs. 25,000/-. The reason
assigned by the High Court to reduce the
monthly income of the deceased is totally
cryptic
and
has
no
rationale.
The
Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be
a guiding factor only in a case where there
is no clue available to evaluate monthly
income of the deceased. Where positive
evidence has been led, no reliance on the
Notification could be placed, particularly
when it was nobody's case that the
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased was a labourer as presumed by
the High Court."
(emphasis supplied)

7. From the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur
(supra) it is evident that if the deceased was
enjoying a particular lifestyle and incurring
recurring expenditure, which was proved
by the claimants, the Tribunal can assess
his income on the basis of the expenditure
incurred by him. In the instant case, the
claimants proved before the Tribunal that
the deceased was the owner of the loader,
which was purchased on loan, and the
deceased was paying a regular EMI of Rs.
18,250/- per month towards repayment of
loan. The Tribunal has considered this
aspect and further concluded that, since
there were five dependents of the deceased,
he must have been earning at least an
additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month
to sustain his family.

8. Accordingly, the Tribunal has
assessed the total income of the deceased as
Rs. 18,250 + Rs. 7,000 = Rs. 25,250/- per
month, which cannot be said to be
erroneous or perverse, in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

9. It is to be noted that under Rule
220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,
1998, the claimants were entitled to future
prospects at the rate of 50%, as he was
below 40 years of age on the date of the
accident;
however,
the
Tribunal
has
awarded future prospects only at the rate of
40%.

10. In view of the above, the amount
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
cannot be reduced.

11. Accordingly, this appeal has got
no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the
admission stage.

12. The appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage.

13. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

14. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 590
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2119 of 2025

Chandra Pal Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Dhoom Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Aanya Verma, Alok Saxena

Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether an appeal filed under
O. XLIII R. 1(r) CPC is maintainable when the
impugned
order
itself
arises
from
a
miscellaneous civil appeal that is, an appellate
order passed u/s 104 read with O. XLIII Rule
1(r) in view of the statutory embargo contained
in s. 104(2) CPC, which prohibits any further
appeal from an order passed in appeal.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. XLIII R.
1(r), s. 104 - The appellants - plaintiffs, in
Original Suit No. 125 of 2024, had secured
an order of temporary injunction upon
Application 6C2 from the Civil Judge
(Junior Division)-I, Hapur on 24.12.2024,
restraining the defendants - Aggrieved