# The New India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 599
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 4129 of 2011
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-insurance-co-ltd-v-smt-vidya-devi-alias-masnahi-ors-52705
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

any pleading or evidence demonstrating that the
vehicle-owner had knowledge of the alleged
forged or fabricated nature of the driver's
licence, the insurer can lawfully avoid its
statutory liability u/s 149(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by asserting that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident, thereby disentitling the claimants from
indemnification of the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 -The
case arises out of a motor accident that
occurred on 02.11.2007 at about 8:00
A.M.,
when
the
deceased
aged
approximately 32 years and engaged in
pig farming and agricultural activities,
was fatally injured after being hit by
Crane, allegedly driven in a rash and
negligent manner - The Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
upon
assessing
the
notional income of the deceased, applying
multiplier 16, deducting one-third towards
personal expenses, and awarding amounts
for
funeral
expenses
and
loss
of
consortium,
determined
a
total
compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- with 6%
interest, to be indemnified by the insurer -
The
Insurance
Company,
while
not
disputing the occurrence of the accident,
contested its liability on the ground that
the driver of the offending vehicle was
allegedly not holding a valid and effective
driving licence, asserting that the licence
produced
was
forged,
however,
no
supporting oral evidence was adduced
before
the
Tribunal
-
Aggrieved
by
Tribunal's finding that driver held a valid
licence due to renewal covering the
accident period, the insurer preferred the
instant appeal.
Held: When the evidence is examined in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it
is evident that the owner, in his written
statement, has stated that the driver employed
by him possessed a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident and the
owner has also mentioned the details of the
driving licence and the office from which the
driving licence was issued - The written
statement also discloses that the licence was
renewed from 05.03.2006 to 04.03.2009 - It is
well settled that the owner is not required to
make due diligence regarding the genuinity and
authenticity of the driving licence - It is well
settled that the owner has to only prima facie
examine the driving licence produced by the
driver and if the owner is satisfied that it is
valid, then no additional burden is cast upon the
owner - In view of facts, even if the driving
licence of the offending driver was fake, even
then as per the law laid down by Apex Court in
the case of Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit)
(infra), the Insurance Company of offending
vehicle is liable to indemnify the claimants, in
respect of the compensation awarded to them,
by the Tribunal - Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
[Paras 18, 20, 21] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2185; National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 -
relied on

Ram Chandra Singh v. Raja Ram and others,
(2018) 8 SCC 799; Nirmala Kothari v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 49;
Gurpreet Kaur and Others v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. and Others 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1778; Jitendra v. Sadiya & Others
2025 SCC OnLine SC 261; Sarla Verma(SMT)
& Ors v. Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6
SCC 121 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Untimely death; Compensation; Interest @ 6%
per annum; Indemnify / indemnification; Rash
10 All. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
601
and negligent manner; Primary occupation;
Notional income; Multiplier; Deduction towards
self expenses; Funeral expenses; Loss of
consortium; Valid and effective driving licence;
Forged driving licence / fake licence; Liability to
pay compensation; Burde

## Text

10 All. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
599

15. I have considered the case laws
submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent, which are not applicable on the
facts of the case. All the case laws deal
with an agreement to sell, which reiterate
the settled legal position that the agreement
to sell does not confer any right, title or
interest in the disputed property. Further, it
has been mentioned that for obtaining the
decree of specific performance in its
favour, the plaintiff has to prove readiness
and willingness to perform its part of the
agreement.

16. In the case of Guruswamy Nadar
(supra), the Apex Court has considered the
effect of lispendens between the original
parties and has held that party purchasing
the property after the suit had been filed by
the original purchaser, does not get good
title. It was further held that the benefit of
exception was not available to that party in
view of doctrine of lispendens. There is no
quarrel with the above proposition of law.

17. It is apparent that the plaintiffs,
apprehension is that the defendant is
intending to sell the disputed land and if the
defendants succeeds in doing so, it will
create complications in the suit and it will
create third party rights and for avoiding
this, the plaintiffs have filed the interim
injunction application before the trial court,
which has been rejected on the erroneous
reasoning that neither the plaintiffs are the
owner of the disputed land nor in
possession, which is an admitted position
of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs are not
protecting their possession of the disputed
land. As such, the above reasoning of the
trial court is perverse and is liable to be set
aside.

18. It is apparent that in given
circumstances,
the
relief
of
interim
injunction can be granted in favour of the
plaintiffs
against
the
defendant
for
preventing the defendant from alienating or
transferring the disputed property, even if
the principle of lispendens enumerated in
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
is applicable, as held by the Apex Court in
the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi
(supra).

19. In view of the aforesaid facts, the
trial court has certainly erred in rejecting
the
plaintiffs?
interim
injunction
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
C.P.C., which deserves to be allowed.

20.
Accordingly,
this
appeal
is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
17.09.2025 is set aside. The plaintiffs'
application 6C-2 under Order 39 Rule 1 &
2 C.P.C. stands allowed. Consequently, the
defendant is restrained from alienating,
transferring or creating third party rights in
the disputed land, during the pendency of
the suit.

21. The trial court is directed to decide
the original suit preferably within a period
of six months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order, without
affording unnecessary adjournments to the
parties, on merits, in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 599
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 4129 of 2011

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
...Respondents
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
P.K. Sinha, Pradeep Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether in the absence of
any pleading or evidence demonstrating that the
vehicle-owner had knowledge of the alleged
forged or fabricated nature of the driver's
licence, the insurer can lawfully avoid its
statutory liability u/s 149(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by asserting that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident, thereby disentitling the claimants from
indemnification of the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 -The
case arises out of a motor accident that
occurred on 02.11.2007 at about 8:00
A.M.,
when
the
deceased
aged
approximately 32 years and engaged in
pig farming and agricultural activities,
was fatally injured after being hit by
Crane, allegedly driven in a rash and
negligent manner - The Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
upon
assessing
the
notional income of the deceased, applying
multiplier 16, deducting one-third towards
personal expenses, and awarding amounts
for
funeral
expenses
and
loss
of
consortium,
determined
a
total
compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- with 6%
interest, to be indemnified by the insurer -
The
Insurance
Company,
while
not
disputing the occurrence of the accident,
contested its liability on the ground that
the driver of the offending vehicle was
allegedly not holding a valid and effective
driving licence, asserting that the licence
produced
was
forged,
however,
no
supporting oral evidence was adduced
before
the
Tribunal
-
Aggrieved
by
Tribunal's finding that driver held a valid
licence due to renewal covering the
accident period, the insurer preferred the
instant appeal.
Held: When the evidence is examined in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it
is evident that the owner, in his written
statement, has stated that the driver employed
by him possessed a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident and the
owner has also mentioned the details of the
driving licence and the office from which the
driving licence was issued - The written
statement also discloses that the licence was
renewed from 05.03.2006 to 04.03.2009 - It is
well settled that the owner is not required to
make due diligence regarding the genuinity and
authenticity of the driving licence - It is well
settled that the owner has to only prima facie
examine the driving licence produced by the
driver and if the owner is satisfied that it is
valid, then no additional burden is cast upon the
owner - In view of facts, even if the driving
licence of the offending driver was fake, even
then as per the law laid down by Apex Court in
the case of Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit)
(infra), the Insurance Company of offending
vehicle is liable to indemnify the claimants, in
respect of the compensation awarded to them,
by the Tribunal - Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
[Paras 18, 20, 21] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2185; National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 -
relied on

Ram Chandra Singh v. Raja Ram and others,
(2018) 8 SCC 799; Nirmala Kothari v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 49;
Gurpreet Kaur and Others v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. and Others 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1778; Jitendra v. Sadiya & Others
2025 SCC OnLine SC 261; Sarla Verma(SMT)
& Ors v. Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6
SCC 121 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Untimely death; Compensation; Interest @ 6%
per annum; Indemnify / indemnification; Rash
10 All. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
601
and negligent manner; Primary occupation;
Notional income; Multiplier; Deduction towards
self expenses; Funeral expenses; Loss of
consortium; Valid and effective driving licence;
Forged driving licence / fake licence; Liability to
pay compensation; Burden was upon the
Insurance
Company;
Renewal
of
licence;
Entrustment of vehicle; Breach by the insured;
Cross objection; Enhancement of compensation;
Personal expenses; Future prospects; Loss of
estate; Dependents; Fixed deposits; Statutory
deposit; Due diligence

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 4129 of 2011
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
23.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.10,
Allahabad, in MACP No.100 of 2008

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
P.K. Sinha, Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Adv. for the Respondents:
Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar

(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 Crane No.
UP-70-AT-4932 against the impugned
judgment and award dated 23.08.2011
passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.10, Allahabad, in MACP No.100 of
2008, Smt. Vidya Devi @ Masnahi and
others vs. Navyug Engineering Company
Limited and another, whereby, for the
untimely death of Ramkishore Bhartiya in a
motor
accident
that
occurred
on
02.11.2007,
a
compensation
of
Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum, has been awarded to the
claimants and the insurer of the offending
vehicle i.e. the appellant has been ordered
to indemnify the above compensation.

2. Factual matrix is that on 02.11.2007
at about 8:00 A.M., when the deceased
Ramkishore was returning after attending
the call of nature, then he was hit by Crane
No. UP-70-AT-4932, which was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner
resulting in serious injuries to him and due
to which, he subsequently died. At the time
of
the
accident,
the
deceased
was
approximately 32 years of age and was
engaged in pig farming and agricultural
activities, as his primary occupation. He
was earning about 5,000/- per month from
these activities. The Tribunal assessed his
income to be notional by assuming he was
earning Rs.15,000/- per year, applied
multiplier of 16, made deduction of 1/3rd
towards self expenses, awarded Rs.5,000/-
each for funeral expenses and loss of
consortium. In all, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.1,70,000/-
compensation
to
the
claimants along with interest @ 6% per
annum
which
was
ordered
to
be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
Insurance Company submitted that there is
no dispute regarding the accident, but the
only disputed issue is that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having a valid
and effective driving licence on the date of
the accident and the driving licence
produced by the owner of the offending
vehicle before the Tribunal was found
forged after verification from the concerned
RTO, as such, the Insurance Company was
not liable to indemnify the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, to the claimants.
Learned counsel submitted that, if the
original driving licence was fake, then its
subsequent renewal cannot cure the defect
and in view of this, the Insurance Company
cannot be saddled with the liability of
paying the compensation to the claimants.
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants-respondents submitted that the
owner of the offending vehicle was not
aware that the driver was having a forged
driving licence, as such, the owner cannot
be entrusted with the liability of verifying
the licence from the concerned RTO.

5. Learned counsel further submitted
that the Insurance Company failed to take
the plea of forged and fake licence in the
written statement submitted by it before the
Tribunal and further, no oral evidence was
adduced by the Insurance Company to
substantiate the above plea.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the
burden was upon the Insurance Company
to prove that when the driver was employed
by the owner, he was aware that the driver
was having a fake and forged driving
licence, as such, in the absence of the
above evidence on record, the Insurance
Company is liable to indemnify under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Learned counsel in support of his
above submissions relied upon the case law
of Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. and
others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2185.

8. I have heard the learned counsel of
both the sides and perused the record.

9. For appreciating the controversy in
issue, it will be appropriate to examine the
pleas taken in the written statement filed by
the owner. The owner of the offending
vehicle Navyug Engineering Company
Limited filed its written statement before
the Tribunal, in which it submitted in para
17 that on the day of the alleged accident,
the offending vehicle was being driven by
the driver, who was having valid driving
licence no.E-35435/2003, which was issued
on 06.03.2003 by the Licensing Authority,
District Seedhi, Madhya Pradesh, which
was
renewed
from
05.03.2006
till
04.03.2009. It was further pleaded that the
vehicle was insured with the appellant, was
having a valid permit and the vehicle was
being operated according to the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, as such,
if any, liability to pay compensation was
imposed on him, then the Insurance
Company was liable to indemnify it.

10. The Insurance Company in it?s
written statement before the Tribunal,
denied that the offending vehicle was
insured with it, denied that the driver was
having a valid and effective driving licence
and also submitted that the vehicle was
being
operated
in
violation
of
the
conditions of insurance policy. It was
further pleaded that the burden was upon
the vehicle-owner to prove that he handed
the vehicle to a driver, who was having a
valid and effective driving licence, for
driving in a public place.

11. Before the Tribunal, the widow of
the deceased Smt. Vidya Devi @ Masnahi
as PW-1 and eye witness Jeetlal as PW-2
were examined but neither the owner of the
offending
vehicle
nor
the
Insurance
Company adduced any oral evidence.

12. The Tribunal framed issue no.3,
regarding the validity of the driving licence
to the following effect:-

Whether
the
driver
of
the
concerned crane vehicle was having a valid
driving licence at the time of the accident?
If so, its effect?

13. The Tribunal considered the above
issue and, after perusing the driving licence
10 All. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
603
of the driver, Islam Mohammad Ansari,
concluded that it was renewed by the
Assistant
Transport
Officer,
District
Seedhi, Madhya Pradesh, for the period
05.03.2006 to 04.03.2009, whereas the
accident occurred on 02.11.2007 at about
8:00 A.M., as such, the driver of the
offending vehicle was having a valid
driving licence at the time of the accident.
Aggrieved
against
this
finding,
the
Insurance Company has filed the instant
appeal.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Raja Ram and
others, (2018) 8 SCC 799 has held that it
is well established that if the owner was
aware of the fact that the licence was fake
and still permitted the driver to drive the
vehicle, then the insurer would stand
absolved. However, the mere fact that the
driving licence is fake, per se, would not
absolve the insurer.

15. The Apex Court in the case of
Nirmala
Kothari
vs.
United
India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 49, held
as under:-

"12. While hiring a driver the
employer is expected to verify if the driver
has a driving licence. If the driver produces
a licence which on the face of it looks
genuine, the employer is not expected to
further investigate into the authenticity of
the licence unless there is cause to believe
otherwise. If the employer finds the driver
to be competent to drive the vehicle and
has satisfied himself that the driver has a
driving licence there would be no breach of
Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance
company would be liable under the policy.
It would be unreasonable to place such a
high onus on the insured to make enquiries
with RTOs all over the country to ascertain
the veracity of the driving licence.
However, if the insurance company is able
to prove that the owner/insured was aware
or had notice that the licence was fake or
invalid and still permitted the person to
drive, the insurance company would no
longer continue to be liable."

16. The Apex Court in the case of
Hind Samachar Ltd. (supra) has held as
under:-

"7. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Lehru & Others (2003) 3 SCC 338
was a case in which though an allegation
of the driving licence produced being fake
was raised, the same was not proved before
the Tribunal. The trite law was noticed that
even if the licence is fake, the insurance
company is liable to pay compensation, if
they fail to prove that the insured had
deliberately committed breach in entrusting
the vehicle to a driver who had a fake
licence. New India Assurance Co. v.
Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342 wherein despite
finding breach, the insurer was directed to
pay compensation to the third parties, but,
enabled recovery from the insured was
noticed. It was categorically held that
whether the insured would be protected by
such an order was left open to be
considered on the facts of each case. It was
held in Lehru(supra) that:-

18....we are thus in agreement
with
what
is
laid
down
in
the
aforementioned cases viz. that in order to
avoid liability it is not sufficient to show
that the person driving at the time of
accident was not duly licensed. The
Insurance Co. must establish that the
breach was on the part of the insured"

8. In National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3
SCC 297, a three Judge Bench of this
Court, considered the purported conflict in
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kamla (supra) and Lehru (supra) to hold
as under:-

"99. So far as the purported
conflict in the judgments of Kamla(supra)
and Lehru(supra)is concerned, we may
wish to point out that the defence to the
effect that the licence held by the person
driving the vehicle was a fake one, would
be available to the insurance companies,
but whether despite the same, the plea of
default on the part of the owner has been
established or not would be a question
which will have to be determined in each
case."

9. In Pepsu Road Transport
Corporation
vs.
National
Insurance
Company (2013) 10 SCC 217, it was held
so on the facts arising in the said case, as
under:-

"11. On facts, in the instant case,
the appellant employer had employed the
third respondent Nirmal Singh as driver in
1994. In the process of employment, he had
been put to a driving test and he had been
imparted training also. The accident took
place only after six years of his service in
PRTC as driver. In such circumstances, it
cannot be said that the insured is at fault in
having employed a person whose licence
has been proved to be fake by the
Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
As we have already noted above, on
scanning the evidence of the licensing
authority before the Tribunal, it cannot
also be absolutely held that the licence to
the driver had not been issued by the said
authority and that the licence was fake.
Though the appellant had also taken a
contention that the compensation is on the
higher side, no serious attempt has been
made and according to us justifiably, to
canvas that position."

10. In IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Devi &
Ors.(2024) 13 SCC 755, this Court
deprecated the practice of the insurance
companies blithely claiming that the
deceased vehicle owner did not conduct
due diligence while employing a driver;
which is not a condition prescribed either
in the statute or in the insurance policy,
despite the wealth of precedents. It was
held so in paragraph 15, as under:-

"15. Applying the afore-stated
edicts to the case on hand, it may be noted
that the petitioner-insurance company did
not even raise the plea that the owner of the
vehicle allowed Ujay Pal to drive the
vehicle knowing that his licence was fake.
Its stand was that the accident had
occurred due to the negligence of the victim
himself. Further, the insurance policy did
not require the vehicle owner to undertake
verification of the driving licence of the
driver of the vehicle by getting the same
confirmed with the RTO. Therefore, the
claim of the petitioner-insurance company
that it has the right to recover the
compensation from the owners of the
vehicle, owing to a willful breach of the
condition of the insurance policy, viz., to
ensure that the vehicle was driven by a
licenced driver, is without pleading and
proof."

17. It is apparent from the above law
laid down by the Apex Court that there
must be pleading on the part of the
Insurance Company to prove that there was
no due diligence at the time, when the
driver was employed by the owner and the
vehicle was entrusted to him. The owner of
a vehicle employing a driver can only look
at the licence produced by the person
seeking employment and is not expected to
verify from the licence issuing authority,
whether the licence is effective or not. It is
apparent that the Insurance Company, from
the totality of the circumstances, has to
establish that the owner failed to exercise
10 All. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
605
due diligence in the employment of the
driver or in the entrustment of the vehicle,
in order to prove breach by the insured.

18. When the evidence in the instant
case is examined in light of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
evident that the owner, in his written
statement, has stated that the driver
employed by him possessed a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the
accident and the owner has also mentioned
the details of the driving licence and the
office from which the driving licence was
issued. The written statement also discloses
that the licence was renewed from
05.03.2006 to 04.03.2009.

19. In view of the above facts, the
burden was upon the Insurance Company
to prove that when the offending vehicle
was entrusted to the driver, then the owner
was well aware that the driving licence
produced by the driver was a forged and
fabricated one.

20. It is well settled that the owner is
not required to make due diligence
regarding the genuinity and authenticity of
the driving licence. It is well settled that the
owner has to only prima facie examine the
driving licence produced by the driver and
if the owner is satisfied that it is valid, then
no additional burden is cast upon the
owner.

21. In view of the above facts, even if
the driving licence of the offending driver
was fake, even then as per the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) (supra),
the Insurance Company of the offending
vehicle is liable to indemnify the claimants,
in respect of the compensation awarded to
them, by the Tribunal.

22. Accordingly, this appeal has got
no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

23. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

Order on Cross Objection No.56 of
2021

1. This cross objection has been filed
by the claimants on 22.03.2021 for
enhancement of compensation awarded in
Motor Accident Claims Petition No.100 of
2008, Smt. Vidya Devi @ Masnahi and
others vs. Navyug Engineering Company
Limited and another.

2. The delay in filing the cross
objection is condoned.

3. According to the claimants, the
deceased Ramkishore was aged about 32
years at the time of the accident and was
doing pig farming and agriculture and was
earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but there is
no documentary proof of his income.
Further, the deceased was married and had
three minor children, namely Mukesh,
Sandeep and Deepak. The Tribunal has
awarded compensation on the annual
notional income of Rs.15,000/-, taking the
age of deceased to be 35 years, applied
multiplier of 16 and after deducting 1/3rd
amount towards self expenses, awarded
compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-.

4. Besides this, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral
expenses and loss of consortium. In all, the
Tribunal
awarded
Rs.1,70,000/-
compensation to the claimants, for the
untimely death of Ramkishore.

5. The Apex Court in the case of
Gurpreet Kaur and Others vs. United
India Insurance Company Ltd. and
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Others 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 deceased was a labourer as
presumed by the High Court. "
(emphasis supplied)

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Jitendra vs. Sadiya & Others 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 261, held as under:-

"10. We have heard the learned
counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to
agree with the view taken by the Tribunal
and High Court on the income of the
Appellant and the functional disability
suffered by him. At the outset, we must
refer to the exposition of this Court in
Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance
Company Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778.,
wherein it was stated the notifications
under the Minimum Wages Act can be a
guiding factor in cases where there is no
evidence available to evaluate monthly
income."

7.
The
accident
happened
on
02.11.2007 and at that time, the minimum
wages for unskilled labour prevalent in the
State of Uttar Pradesh was Rs.3,000/- per
month as such, it will be appropriate that in
the absence of any documentary evidence
of income, the income of the deceased is
calculated on the basis of minimum wages
of
Rs.3,000/-per
month.
Since,
the
deceased was aged about 35 years, and was
not having fixed income, he is entitled to
get future prospects at the rate of 40% as
determined by the Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Since the
number of dependents were 4, only 1/4th
amount is to be deducted towards personal
expenses and since the deceased was aged
about 35 years, as per the decision of the
Apex
Court in the
case
of
Sarla
Verma(SMT) & Ors vs Delhi Transport
10 All. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Alias Masnahi & Ors.
607
Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a
multiplier of 16 is to be applied.

8. As per the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Pranay
Sethi(supra),
and
Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18
SCC 130 the claimants are entitled to loss
of consortium of Rs.40,000/- per head.
Besides this, the claimants are also entitled
to get Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral
expenses and loss of estate, which is to be
increased @10% after every three years.

9. The claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:-

S.N
o.
Compensati
on Heads

Amount
Awarded(in Rs.)
In
Accordan
ce with.
1.
Monthly
income
of
deceased as
per
minimum
wages of unskilled
workman

3,000/-
Gurpreet
Kaur
(supra)&
Jitendra
(supra)
2.
Annual
Income
of
deceased

3,000X12=36,000/
-
Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

3.
Less
1/4th
deduction
towards self
expenses

9,000/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

4.
Net
annual
income
on
which
claimants
were
dependent

27,000/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

5.
Add
future
prospects
@40% since
deceased
was
not
having fixed
income

10,800/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

6.
Total annual
37,800/-
Pranay
dependency
of claimants
on deceased
Sethi(supr
a)

7.
Multiplier
applied since
age
of
deceased
was 35 years

16

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

8.
Total loss of
dependency
to
the
claimants

37,800X16=6,04,8
00/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

9.
Loss
of
consortium
to
widow
and 3 minor
children
@Rs.40,000/
-each,
increased by
10%
after
every
3
years

48,400X4=1,93,60
0/-
Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)
and
Magma
General
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
(supra)

10.
Loss
of
estate
@
Rs.15,000/-
increased by
10%
after
every
3
years.

18,150/-
Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

11.
Funeral
Expenses@
Rs.15,000/-
increased by
10%
after
every
3
years.

18,150/-
Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

12.
Total
compensatio
n
8,34,700/-

10. The claimants/cross-objects are
entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.8,34,700/- alongwith interest @6% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited. The
cross-objection is allowed, accordingly.
The impugned judgment and award
dated 23.08.2011, passed in MACP
No.100
of
2008,
stands
modified
accordingly.

11. In the instant case, the impugned
judgment was passed by the Tribunal on
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
23.08.2011, whereas the cross-objection
was filed belatedly on 22.03.2021. As such,
the
claimants/cross-objectors
are
not
entitled to get any interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by this
Court for the period 24.08.2011 till
22.03.2021. If any amount of compensation
has already been paid to the claimants, the
same shall be adjusted by the Tribunal.

12. Since the minor children of the
deceased have now attained majority, the
amount of enhanced compensation awarded
by this Court need not be deposited in fixed
deposits. The Tribunal shall be at liberty to
disburse
the
enhanced
amount
of
compensation in favour of the dependents
of the deceased in accordance with law.

13. The appellant insurance company
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
of
compensation
before
the
tribunal
concerned, within two months.

14. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.

15. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 608
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3791 of 2025

Jagdish Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rishabh Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rahul Sahai

Issue for Consideration
Whether in tenancy dispute the petitioner is
having no right to raise any title dispute and
issue of impleadment of any person coupled
with this fact that alleged aggrieved person
have never came up before the Court for filing
impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10
of CPC

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908-Order I
Rule 10; The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227; The Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act,1887-Section 15- SCC suit has
been filed by the landlord against the
tenant in which tenancy is admitted in
written submission without any dispute.
Further lease deed dated 23.2.2011 is
executed, which is time bound lease
subject to further renewal and only
limited rights have been given to lessee,
therefore, in title dispute lessee would not
be necessary party. In SCC Suit rights of
third party is affected in tenancy dispute.
Further in case right of any third party is
affected, they are having full right to file
any application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
for which there is no legal obligation upon
the
petitioner-defendant
to
file
such
application on their behalf. (E-15)

Held- that filing of proceedings under the PSCC
1887 are contained under Section 15 of the
PSCC Act read with the II Schedule and
interpretation thereof would lead to a conclusion
that it is primarily limited to disputes between
lessor and lessee for rent and eviction beyond
that nothing can be seen and same has also
been concluded in paragraph 38 of the
judgment, therefore, this Court is of the view
that such impleadment application in light of
facts hereinabove cannot be entertained in SCC
Suit.
(Para 30 & 34)

Case Law Cited