HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2540 of 2008 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned Counsel for the claimants. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 23.11.2015 whereby an amount of Rs.4,51,700/- was awarded on account of death of the deceased along with 6% interest. 3. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the award is bad in law as the driver of the vehicle was not impleaded as a party respondent. It is further argued that the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was wrongly applied, as the deceased was unmarried and, therefore, 1/2 ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses. 4. The Counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand argues that non-impleadment of the driver would not be fatal to the claim petition. It is further argued that although no cross-objection has been filed, it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation. He further argues that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate even the multiplayer is wrongly applied. 5. In the light of the aforesaid arguments, what transpires from the record is that the deceased Kuldeep Kumar was coming to his village on the left side of the road when a tractor bearing No.UP81H 6612 driving by its driver rashly and negligently hit him which resulted in substantial injury and death of the deceased. The claim petition was filed by the father, mother and sister of the deceased alleging that the deceased was unmarried and was aged about 23 years. The deceased was earning Rs.4,700/- per month. In the light of the said pleadings, as many as, five issues were framed by the Tribunal. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : B.B. Kesarwani, Bibhuti Narayan Singh, Dinesh Kumar Tiwari New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Yogendra Sharma And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. A perusal of the issues on record reveals that the driver was a necessary party; however, no issue regarding non-impleadment was framed, nor was any application filed by the Insurance Company seeking framing of such an issue. Thus, on that count, the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant merits rejection even otherwise the award has been claimed against the owner of the vehicle which was insured by the Insurance Company, thus, non-impleadment of the driver of the vehicle would not be fatal as has been argued by the Counsel for the appellant. 7. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the only submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the deduction of 1/3rd as personal expenses is bad in law as the deceased was unmarried. Although no cross objection has been filed, it is the duty of the Tribunal or the Court to award just and fair compensation to the claimant, in accordance with law. This aspect was also considered by this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap and others vs State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.1002174 & Writ-C No.1002173); (2022) 05 ILR A473. 8. Considering the fact that the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.4,300/- per month and there is no dispute on that count, and the age of the deceased was 25 years, which is also not disputed. The quantum as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; (2009) 6 SCC 121; Megma General Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.) would worked out as under: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.4,300/- per month 2. Adding 40% in the light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) Rs.6,020/- per month 3. Net yearly income Rs.72,240/- 4. As per the Sarla Verma's case (Supra), the deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses would apply as the deceased was unmarried Rs.72,240 x 1/2 = Rs.36,120/- After deduction : Rs.72,240 - Rs.36,120 = Rs.36,120/- 5. Applying multiplier of '18' Rs.36,120 x 18 = Rs.6,50,160/- Amount under conventional heads: (i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/- Rs.18,500 + Rs.18,500 + 6. FAFO No. 2540 of 2008 2 (ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra) (iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per person (Rs.48,500 x 3) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) Rs.1,45,500 = Rs.1,82,500/- 7. Total amount of compensation Rs.6,50,160 + Rs.1,82,500 Rs. 8,32,660/- 9. The amount as recorded above shall be paid by the appellant to the claimants within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment/realisation and the amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimant. 10. The application filed by the claimants for withdrawal of the money is disposed off as this Court had already directed that the entire amount shall be paid to the claimants within a period of three months. 11. The appeal is dismissed. May 7, 2026 akverma FAFO No. 2540 of 2008 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad