# The New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Sunita & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 65
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1351 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-company-ltd-v-smt-sunita-ors-45920
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Section 166 - Compensation -
Contributory negligence - Truck came from
behind and dashed against motorcycle while
overtaking
-
Motorcycle
went
away
on
unmetalled road & pillion rider died on spot -
Held - Bigger vehicle has to be more cautious -
Driver of motor vehicle must slow down at
intersection or junction of roads or at turning of
road - Version of Truck driver that motorcyclist
came on road suddenly, not acceptable as it
was national highway and Motorcyclist was
driving motorcycle on road and there was no
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
curve or by lane - No contributory negligence,
established on part of Motorcyclist - Insurer of
offending vehicle liable to pay compensation.
(Para 22)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Section 166 - Claim petition -
Involvement of vehicle - Motorcycle dashed by
Truck from behind - Involvement of vehicle
established as F.I.R., charge-sheet and evidence
of witnesses laid before Tribunal showing that
truck hit motorcyclist from behind - Held - Just
because in FIR, number of vehicle not
mentioned cannot be ground to discard finding
as to involvement of truck (Para 22)

Appeal Dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

7 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.
65
rejection on the basis of the place where
Vakalatnama of the Advocate is bad in eye
of law. The testimony of Manoj Kumar
Trivedi had to be taken in account. This
High Court held that once the F.I.R. and the
chargesheet go to show that accident had
occurred on a hyper technical stand that the
minor children were not examined in the
claim petition rejecting the claim, the
answer is "NO". The inference drawn by
the Tribunal is required to be interfered
with.
The
testimony
of
respondent
accepting that the vehicle was involved
coupled with the fact that chargesheet was
laid, the Tribunal could not have rejected
the claim petition.

6. Having considered the facts and
circumstances as long time has elapsed,
this Court would decide the quantum also
as held by the Apex Court as the record is
before this Court and all that has to be
done is to calculate the quantum on the
principles of decisions of the Apex Court
and this High Court relating to a minor,
who had fracture of his one lower limb
and the doctor has opined that he has 40%
disability of the said limb. The injured was
12 years of old when the accident took
place that is 17 years ago. His income can
be considered to be Rs.1500/ per month.
His functional disability can be considered
to be 20% for the body as a whole. He was
in hospital for one and a half month. In
that view of the matter, the calculation can
be made as below: The addition of 40% to
his notional income will have to be done
hence his income would be approximately
Rs. 2100.00 hence his future loss of
income would be 20% of Rs.2100/- which
means Rs.420/- x 12 x 18 is equal to
Rs.90,720/- to which Rs. 25,000/- +
additional amount of Rs.40,000/- under
other heads hence the claimant would be
entitled to Rs. 1,55,720/-.

7. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The amount be
deposited with interest at the rate of 9%
from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the amount is deposited. The amount be
deposited within a period of 12 weeks from
today.

8. The record be sent back to the
Tribunal.
----------
(2020)07ILR A65
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.06.2020

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1351 of 2009

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Gupta, Sri Santosh K. Singh, Sri
Satya Deo Ojha

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Section 166 - Compensation -
Contributory negligence - Truck came from
behind and dashed against motorcycle while
overtaking
-
Motorcycle
went
away
on
unmetalled road & pillion rider died on spot -
Held - Bigger vehicle has to be more cautious -
Driver of motor vehicle must slow down at
intersection or junction of roads or at turning of
road - Version of Truck driver that motorcyclist
came on road suddenly, not acceptable as it
was national highway and Motorcyclist was
driving motorcycle on road and there was no
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
curve or by lane - No contributory negligence,
established on part of Motorcyclist - Insurer of
offending vehicle liable to pay compensation.
(Para 22)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Section 166 - Claim petition -
Involvement of vehicle - Motorcycle dashed by
Truck from behind - Involvement of vehicle
established as F.I.R., charge-sheet and evidence
of witnesses laid before Tribunal showing that
truck hit motorcyclist from behind - Held - Just
because in FIR, number of vehicle not
mentioned cannot be ground to discard finding
as to involvement of truck (Para 22)

Appeal Dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1. Smt. Santosh & ors. Vs United India
Insurance Comp. & ors. FAFO No.866 of 2003
decided on 4.3.2020

2. Nishan Singh Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2018) 6 SCC 265

3. Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd
AIR (2018) SC 1900

4. Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330

5. Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Punj (2005) 0 ACJ SC
1840

6. National Insurance Com. Limited Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors. (2017) 0 Supreme SC 105

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of The
New India Assurance Company, challenges
the judgment and award dated 7.2.2009
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional
District
Judge,
Meerut
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.C.P No. 202 of 2008 awarding a sum
of Rs.13,52,060/- with interest at the rate of
6%.

3. The parties are referred to as
insurance
company/appellant
and
claimants/respondents / original applicants.

4. The claimants are the legal heirs of
deceased who was a police constable
earning Rs.15,000/-per month and on the
faithful day i.e., 20.11.2007 when the
deceased was trying to nab an accused and
was plying as pillion on the motorcycle
bearing No. UP 20 J 9755 at about 11:30 in
night on Delhi-Saharanpur main road
National Highway near Janta Hotel, a truck
bearing No. HR 29 B 7865 came in a rash
and negligent manner dashed with the
motorcycle from behind, deceased was a
pillion rider dashed the motorcycle from
behind the pillion rider, i.e., husband of
claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2
died on the spot. The driver of the
motorcycle on which deceased was plying
sustained serious injuries, it is alleged that
had the driver of the truck driven his truck
in a careful manner, the accident would not
have taken place. The driver of the truck
came from behind and dashed on the left
side of the scooter on unmetalled road
(kachchee Sadak). The respondent No.1,
namely, owner filed reply contending that
his vehicle was being driven on its correctside it was motorcyclist who was driving a
rash and negligent driving and accident
occurred due to the negligence of the
motorcyclist/policeman.
It
is
further
averred that the driver of the truck was
authorised to drive the truck and had a
valid driving license. The vehicle had its
fitness and permit which was valid and that
the vehicle was insured with the insurance
company. The insurance company in its
7 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.
67
written statement filed before the tribunal
did not accept the fact that the vehicle was
insured with them, as the claimant had not
narrated the facts and not given the copy of
the policy. It was further averred that the
accident occurred due to sole negligence of
the motorcyclist. The claim petition was
bad for non-joinder of the driver/owner and
the insurance company of the motorcyclist
and there was breach of policy condition.

5. Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that
involvement of truck is doubtful as the
F.I.R. was lodged against an unknown
vehicle, the number of the truck was not
mentioned in the F.I.R. just because the
owner accepted that the vehicle was
involved it cannot be presumed that the
vehicle was involved, in the alternative, he
has submitted that if this court does not
accept this submission of the insurance
company, then the alternative submission is
that issue of negligence of the motorcycle
and non-joinder of the driver/owner and
insurance company of motorcyclist is also
decided
wrongly
against
insurance
company.

6. It is further submitted that the site
plan goes to show that the offending truck
was driven on its correct side, the driver of
the motorcycle seeing the truck coming
from behind lost his balance and the
vehicle slipped and that is how the
deceased died. The tribunal did not
consider this evidence of the driver and
held that the driver of the truck was
negligent. It is further submitted that
compensation awarded is on higher side.

7. It is further averred in the grounds of
the appeal memo and as submitted by counsel
for insurance company that as the deceased
had died while in service there is no
economic loss to the family members and
therefore also no compensation should have
been awarded. It is further averred that in the
alternative compensation awarded is highly
excessive and the multiplier applied is also
against settled principles of law. It is
submitted by counsel for appellant that the
driver of the truck was driving the vehicle on
its correct side, his evidence has not been
discussed while discussing the issue of
negligence. It is stated that PW-2 Bhrampal
had noted number of the truck but the same
was absent in the FIR which was lodged
immediately and within two minutes of
accident how he had noted the number is also
very doubtful. The involvement of the vehicle
therefore is suspicious and even if it is
considered that the vehicle was involved the
finding of total negligence of the driver of the
truck is against the record and requires
interference.

8. As against this, the learned counsel
for claimants has submitted that the
involvement of the vehicle is proved even
the owner does not dispute that the truck
was not involved in the accident and
therefore in absence of any evidence in the
contributory negligence is concerned. The
deceased was a pillion the vehicle dashed
from behind it came from behind came on
the unmetalled road and the driver of the
truck also does not dispute that he came
from behind his version is that the scooter
is came in front of him which has not been
believed by the learned tribunal. It is
further submitted that as far as the
compensation is concerned it is on the
lower side no amount has been paid for
future loss of income that the rate of
interest is also on the lower side and
request for enhancement of the amount
under the head of non pecuniary damages if
not on the main compensation be granted
on oral request.
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The Tribunal framed five issues
and decided all of them against the
appellant-insurance company.

10. The fact that the accident occurred
on 11:30 p.m. is not in dispute. The
involvement of both the vehicles was
proved by leading cogent evidence, just
because in the F.I.R. number of vehicle is
not mentioned cannot be a ground to
discard
the
finding
of
fact
as
to
involvement of the truck when other
reliable oral and unrebutted evidence led
before tribunal made the tribunal came to
the conclusion about the involvement of
truck. Testimony of Brahmpal Singh, P.W.
2 who was driver of scooter proves that
truck was involved. The involvement of the
vehicle is proved as the F.I.R. charge-sheet
and the evidence laid before the tribunal
goes to show that the truck hit the
motorcyclist from behind. DW-1 Satpal has
been examined on oath as per his evidence,
he has not denied his involvement of his
vehicle. It is proved that he came on wrong
side so as to overtake the motorcycle and
dashed it on the left side and deceased fell
on the dirt track. The deceased was a police
officer, the motorcycle was on metal road
but due to dash from behind the motorcycle
went away on the unmetalled road this
speaks about negligence of the driver of
truck. Recently in First Appeal From
Order No.866 of 2003, Smt. Santosh &
others versus United India Insurance
Company
and
others,
decided
on
4.3.2020, this Court has held as under: -

"While interpreting the provisions
of Section 168 and 168 (4) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as
the ''Act') were ignored by the Tribunal
while deciding the matter. The Tribunal
rejected the clam petition, though the
deceased was admitted in the hospital and
the F.I.R. clearly spelt out that it was due to
the involvement of the vehicle. This fact
was proved as the driver fled away with the
vehicle though G.D. entry also there with
police authorities. The post mortom report
also proved the fact that deceased died due
to accidental injuries. The vehicle tractor
trolly was proved to be involved in the
accident. The tribunal held that the driver,
owner and insurance of the motor cycle
was not joined as a party. The accident had
taken place on 25.05.2001 at 9.30 p.m. as a
result of involvement of tractor trolly
which was not disputed by owner or driver
or Insurance Company which has been
proved by cogent evidence just because
there are certain contradictions in the
testimony of the witness and because who
got the injured, in the hospital is not
mentioned,
the
claim
petition
was
dismissed and being the claimants' case is
disbelieved. The fact is that the charge
sheet was filed pursuant to F.I.R lodged is
not just because in dispute the tractor trolly
was not confiscated detained on the spot it
is held that the vehicle was not involved in
the said accident. Recently the High court
of Gujarat in Joshi Rajendrakumar
Popatlal Vs. Thakor Ramnaji Hamirji
and Others, reported in 2020 ACJ 365
has held that the Tribunal should not decide
claim petition by taking hyper technical
approach
and
thereby
frustrate
the
provision of beneficial peace of legislation.
The Apex Court in Bimla Devi and Ors.
Vs. Satbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (4) SCC
345 has held that hyper technicality should
not be allowed to frustrate the aim of
beneficial peace legislation. In our case
hyper technicality of the learned Tribunal
has resulted into the flaw in his award. It
was established that the deceased had
definitely met with the accident involving
two vehicles. It was also proved that the
accident was between the tractor trolly and
7 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.
69
the motor cycle on which the deceased was
plying. The technical defect of pleading
should not have been made the basis of
rejection of the claim petition. I am
supported in my view by the decision of
Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh
v. Bhim Singh, (2013) 11 SCC 507,
wherein provision of Section 173 of the
''Act' read with Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure,1908 will permit this court
to reverse the perverse findings reached by
the tribunal. The Apex Court decisions in
Sharanmma V. North-East Karnataka
RTC, (2013) 11 SCC 517. The judgment
in
Dulcina
Fernandes
V.
Joaquim
Xavier, First Appeal No. 216 of 2004,
decided on 14.11.2008 with also help the
claimants. Therefore also the appeal will
have to succeed."

11. When the evidence is lead to show
that
the
F.I.R.,
charge
sheet,
other
documentary
evidences
and
the
oral
testimony prove that the vehicle is
involved, it cannot be held otherwise as
argued by the counsel for the appellant.

12. While deciding the issue whether
the vehicle is involved or not this court has
held that the vehicle was involved. Hence
the alternative submission of learned
counsel for appellant will have to be
evaluated in light of the evidence led, the
principles enunciated and on the evidence
led before the tribunal and the alternative
submission that the driver of the truck was
not negligent and it was driver of the
motorcycle who was negligent and even if
we consider this case as a case of
composite negligence, the appellant may be
given the right of recovery from the driver
owner and insurance company of the
motorcycle involved in the accident and it
is further submitted that non joinder of the
other vehicle is bad is not considered by the
tribunal below which would vitiate the
entire award. In contra, the learned counsel
for the claimants has submitted that the
driver of the motorcycle was not negligent,
the driver of the truck came from behind
dashed on the left-side of the motorcycle
whereby the deceased was thrown on the
unmetalled road and died on the spot, the
driver of the motorcycle also fell on the dirt
road and sustained injuries. It is submitted
that the decision of the Apex Court and this
High Court as far as filing a claim against
any of the tortfeasor is at the option of the
claimants and, therefore, the tribunal has
rightly rejected this objection of the
insurance company.

13. The collision of the truck into the
rear portion of the motorcycle resulting in
death of the pillion rider and whether the
truck came too suddenly on center/ right
side and caused collision whether the truck
did not maintain sufficient distance from
the motorcycle thus amounting to rash and
negligent driving, the finding recorded by
the tribunal goes to show that evidence
clearly indicated that the truck was driven
in a rash and negligent manner which was
the cause of the accident resulting in death
of pillion rider. It is clearl that the law
mandates maintaining sufficient distance
between two vehicles running in same
direction. The driver of the truck did not
depose that he had maintained sufficient
distance. The road was National Highway
22 feet wide in any case the truck was
expected to drive with a same distance as
envisaged in rule of road regulations and,
therefore, the finding on issue under
consideration cannot be held against the
motorcycle. The tribunal has not glossed
over the filing of charge sheet against the
truck driver after the investigation. The
evidence analyzed by the tribunal along
with the finding here-in-above cannot be
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reversed. I am supported in view by the
judgment in Nishan Singh v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 265.

14. Recently the apex court in
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 as
there is no legal evidence to answer the
issue of contributory negligence against the
driver of the motorcycle and in absence of
any such evidence this court cannot
interfere under Section 166 read with 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

15. In view of the submission made
by both the counsels as far as negligence is
concerned this court while dealing with the
issue of negligence, it would be relevant to
discuss
the
principles
for
deciding
negligence and for considering composite /
contributory negligence will also have to be
looked into and the principles enunciated
for considering the same in a motor
accident claim.

16. Negligence means failure to
exercise required degree of care expected
of a prudent driver. Negligence is the
omission to do something which a
reasonable
man,
guided
upon
the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence,
it is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one, it is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no legal
consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen and likely to
cause physical injury to person. The degree
of care required, of course, depends upon
facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

17. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law it is the duty of a fast
moving vehicle to slow down and if driver
did not slow down at, but continued to
proceed at a high speed without caring to
notice that another vehicle was either or
going aheadcrossing, then the conduct of
driver necessarily leads to conclusion that
vehicle was being driven by him rashly as
well as negligently and the driver can be
held to be the author of the unforseen
incident.

18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle
Act,1988
contains
statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle must slow down vehicle at
every intersection or junction of roads or at
a turning of the road. It is also provided
that driver of the vehicle should not enter
intersection or junction of roads unless he
makes sure that he would not thereby
endanger
any
other
person.
Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down vehicle as he approaches tries to
overtake of the vehicle on road, particularly
when he could have easily seen, that the
vehicle in or over which deceased was
riding, was being played.
7 All. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.
71

19. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent
as coming within the principle of liability
defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3
HL (LR) 330, from the point of view of
pedestrian, the roads of this country have
been rendered by the use of motor vehicles,
highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where
drivers of motor vehicles who have caused
accidents, are unknown.

20. In the light of the above
discussion, even if courts may not by
interpretation displace the principles of law
which are considered to be well settled and,
therefore, court cannot dispense with proof
of negligence altogether in all cases of
motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to
develop the law further on the following
lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven
with reasonable care, it would ordinarily
not meet with an accident and, therefore,
rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of
evidence may be invoked in motor accident
cases with greater frequency than in
ordinary civil suits (refer Jacob Mathew
V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC)
1840).

21. The burden of proof would
ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a
motor accident claim petition to prove that
motor vehicle driven by the driver was
being driven with reasonable care or it is
proved that there is equal negligence on the
part the other side in causing the accident.

22. T he recent judgment of the Apex
Court is also required to be seen in the factual
background. The evidence of the driver of the
scooter in contra indication to the evidence of
the driver of the truck goes to show that the
truck which was a heavier vehicle had not
taken proper care, the autopsy report shows
that injuries where caused by truck and it is
further shown that the driver of the truck did
not blow any horn. The insurer cross
examined Balram Pal Singh, he has accepted
that the F.I.R. was lodged against the
unknown vehicle. The reason being he was
unconscious for quite, some time he has
noted the number of the truck, he has
emphatically mentioned that the incident took
place involving Truck no. HR 29 B 7865 the
FIR in site plan though did not disclose this.
The driver of the truck came from behind and
dashed with motorcycle, this fact has not
been either disputed or proved to the contrary
by the insurance company or owner or driver.
In this case, eye witness, PW-2 has deposed
that the motorcycle was being driven at a
moderate speed. The driver of the truck has
disposed the scooter came all of a sudden but
whether it was being driven in reckless
manner is not mentioned. There is not dispute
that the truck came from behind and dashed
with the motorcycle going in front, it is a
principle of law that a vehicle which is a
bigger vehicle has to be more cautious. In this
case, the truck came from behind dashed on
the wrong side with the motorcycle. The
motorcyclist was on his correct side is the
version of the driver of the motorcyclist that
due to the dash of the truck, the motorcycle
went away on the unmetalled road and the
deceased died on the spot this shows the
impact of the accident the impact with which
the truck hit the motorcycle going in front of
the truck even if we consider the version of
the driver of the truck namely DW-1 that the
motorcyclist came on the road abruptly the
same cannot be believed, the reason being it
is a national highway and the motorcyclist
was driving the motorcycle on road and there
was no curve or by lane. The motorcycle
cannot be said to be negligent as motorcyclist
has also suffered injuries and therefore can it
be said that he was a co-author of the
accident the principles for considering
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contributory negligence vis-a-vis composite
negligence would also not permit this Court
to hold in favour of the appellant and take a
different view then that taken by the tribunal.
The tribunal has given enough cogent reasons
to come to the conclusion that the accident
was authored by the driver of the truck
against whom, the charge sheet was laid the
post mortem report shows that it was an
instantaneous death due to accidental injuries
tribunal considered the site plan and came to
the conclusion that the accident occurred due
to the negligence of the driver of the truck.
Hence I cannot take a different view then that
taken by the tribunal. The submission that the
tribunal erred in holding that truck was
involved in accident cannot be accepted just
because the number of the vehicle was not
mentioned in F.I.R. As per the provisions of
Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Procedure Code,
1908 would also not permit this Court to hold
otherwise the owner has accepted that it was
negligence of the driver of the motorcycle
which shows that he has accepted his vehicle
namely truck being involved and the
alternative submission that it was a case of
contributory negligence cannot be accepted.
Hence, both involvement and negligence of
the driver of the truck were established and
were rightly considered by the tribunal in
light of the aforesaid decision.

23. As far as the non-joinder of the
driver owner and insurance company of
motorcycle, the tribunal has given cogent
reasons and as it was a case of composite
negligence, there was no necessity to implead
the other vehicle involved in the accident.
Necessity to implead the other vehicles was
not there as truck driver has been held to be
sole negligent.

24. This takes this Court to the question
of compensation awarded. The deceased was
a police personnel and his compensation of
Rs.13,52,060/- cannot be said to be higherside. The Tribunal has added only Rs.9,500/-
for the non pecuniary damages and has not
awarded any amount under loss of future
income. Even if no appeal is preferred this
court under Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
can
grant
just
compensastion and additional amount of
Rs.70,000/- for for non pecuniary damages as
per the judgment of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105 would be
just and proper.

25. The appeal stands dismissed.

26. Oral cross objection is allowed
under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.

27. The additional amount will carry
interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the
filing of the claim petition till deposit. The
amount be deposited within a period of eight
weeks from today.

28. Records and proceedings be sent
back to the Court below immediately. The
amount be disbursed by the Tribunal without
keeping in fixed deposit as 13 years have
already lapsed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A72
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2020

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No.2288 of 2019

Chandrabhan ...Appellant
Versus
Naresh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents