HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2990 of 2006 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Achintya Kumar, holding brief for Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 are present. 2. This appeal, at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, challenges the judgment and award dated 3.8.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Shahjahanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 101 of 2003, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,12,901.81/- was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. According to the appellant-claimant, her husband, Akhtar Ali, was hit by a motorcycle on 28.10.2002 at about 1:00 p.m. while he was proceeding towards Puvaya Road for his personal work. The said motorcycle, bearing registration no. UP 27 D 9725, was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, who came from behind and hit Akhtar Ali. Akhtar Ali sustained serious injuries to his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately rushed to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur, from where he was referred to KGMC, Lucknow. He remained admitted from 21.10.2002 to 9.11.2002 and was thereafter regularly called upon by the doctors for check-ups and monitoring of his health. 4. Akhtar Ali became permanently disabled and was unable to walk on his own. He suffered 60% disability, which is evident from the disability certificate issued by the CMO. It was further stated that, at the time of the incident, Akhtar Ali was employed with Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,092/- per month. Hence, a compensation of Rs. 7,80,000/- was prayed for by the appellant-claimant. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Rishi Bhushan Jauhari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar Akhatar Ali @ Akhtar Hasan @ Ziya .....Appellant(s) Ram Bhajan Gupta And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation without taking into account the loss of income allegedly suffered by injured Akhtar Ali as a consequence of the incident. He was admitted to the hospital for a long period and had to visit the doctors regularly for check-ups even after his discharge from KGMC. The medical expenses incurred by the claimant were also not properly considered. Although Akhtar Ali sustained 60% disability, the learned tribunal did not consider any addition towards future prospects. The learned tribunal had grossly erred in not adding future prospects to the income of the injured. No compensation was awarded under the non-pecuniary heads to which an injured person is entitled in a claim petition. Compensation under various non-pecuniary heads, such as healthy diet, transportation expenses, etc., was neither considered nor awarded. Therefore, the impugned award requires modification by taking into account the addition towards future prospects to the income of the injured, along with additional compensation under the non-pecuniary heads. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claimant had asserted before the learned tribunal that, at the time of the accident, the injured was employed with Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,092/- per month. However, when the claimant was examined before the tribunal as PW-1, Smt. Shahjahan Begum, she categorically admitted that her husband was still continuing in his employment and that his services had not been terminated. Therefore, there was no occasion to consider any addition towards future prospects to his income, as there was no loss of income. Hence, there was no requirement to consider any addition towards future prospects. It was further submitted that all the bills pertaining to medical expenses amounting to Rs. 57,901.81/- were accepted and the said amount was awarded as compensation by the learned tribunal. Apart from the said medical expenses, the claimant had not adduced any additional evidence to establish any other expenses incurred towards medical treatment. Although no amount under the non-pecuniary heads, except Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges, was awarded by the learned tribunal, considering the fact that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been awarded under the head of attendant charges in the year 2006 in respect of an accident which occurred in 2002, the total amount of compensation awarded cannot be held to be inadequate. Therefore, there is no need either to modify or enhance the amount awarded by the learned tribunal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the learned tribunal. It has been categorically admitted by the appellant- claimant that the injured was still continuing in his employment after the FAFO No. 2990 of 2006 2 accident. Although the appellant-claimant had stated before the tribunal that her husband was not receiving salary from his department at that time, she had neither adduced any evidence nor made any claim from which it could be inferred under what circumstances the injured was denied salary by his department. If that was the case, it might have been either because he was on prolonged medical leave or because his services had been terminated. Had he been discharged from service, considering his permanent disability and inability to continue in employment, the matter would have required a different consideration. However, no such fact was placed either before the tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the tribunal denying any addition towards future prospects to the income of the injured. Since there was no loss of income, there was no occasion to consider any addition towards future prospects. 8. Similarly, all the bills pertaining to medical expenses relied upon by the claimant were accepted by the tribunal, and an amount of Rs. 57,901.81/- was awarded under the head of medical expenses. In the absence of any other evidence establishing additional medical expenses, there was no justification for awarding any additional amount towards medical expenses. 9. It is true that the learned tribunal has not awarded amounts under various non-pecuniary heads, as are generally awarded in cases of injury. However, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards attendant charges itself indicates that, considering the circumstances and duration of treatment in the present case, the said amount was sufficient to cover the other non-pecuniary heads. Apart from this, the learned tribunal has also directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire award amount. 10. Considering the award in the light of the evidence available on record as well as the circumstances prevailing in the case, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded in favour of the appellant-claimant is sufficient and adequate. The same does not warrant any modification. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 3.8.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Shahjahanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 101 of 2003 is hereby affirmed. September 7, 2026 Ujjawal FAFO No. 2990 of 2006 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad