HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3309 of 2010 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging an award dated 03.08.2010 whereby, the amount of Rs.2,65,250/- was awarded, which amounted to 75% of the total financial dependency worked in favour of the claimants at Rs.3,51,000/-. 3. The Counsel for the appellant argues that in terms of the assertions made in the claim petition, it was urged that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, which met to an accident with bus, which resulted into his death. 4. The claim petition was contested by arguing that the accident was never took place. The deceased died on account of the motorcycle colliding with a tree and not to the bus and thus the factum of the accident itself was disputed. The tribunal considered the testimony of two witnesses, namely, PW-1 and PW-2. The PW-2 was the driver of the motorcycle and his testimony was considered by the Tribunal for recording a finding that the accident took place in between the motorcycle and the bus. The testimony of the driver of the bus was also recorded who had denied the factum of the accident, however, his testimony was disbelieved for the reason that in the FIR, a final report had been filed and a protest petition was also filed. The driver was summoned by the trial court. Considering the two testimonies, the Tribunal recorded a finding of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anupam Shukla, Komal Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dushyant Kumar, Sachin Kumar, Yash Raj Verma National Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Mukesh Kumar And Another .....Respondent(s) fact that the accident had taken place inter se in between the motorcycle and the bus. 5. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of the bus driver categorically denied the factum of the accident, however, no assertion is made with regard to the testimony of the eyewitness and the person involved in the said accident, namely, the person, who was driving the motorcycle. In the cross-examination of the said PW-2 also did not discard the testimony with regard to the factum of the accident, thus, the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant merits rejection. 6. As regards the compensation, although no cross-appeal has been preferred by the respondents, it is well settled that it is the duty of the court/ tribunal to ensure that the just and proper compensation is to be paid. 7. In the present case, it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, however, his income was assessed as notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month. No future prospects was added. The tentative age of the victim was around 45 years and no pecuniary damages in terms of the law as explained in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.) and in the case of Megma General Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 has been awarded. 8. In view thereof, the just compensation in the present case would work out as under: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Monthly notional income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Adding 25% in the light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) Rs.3,750/- per month 3. Net yearly income Rs.45,000/- Rs.45,000 x 1/4th = Rs.11,250/- 4. Deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses FAFO No. 3309 of 2010 2 After deduction : Rs.45,000 - Rs.11,250 = Rs.33,750/- 5. Applying multiplier of '14' Rs.33,750 x 14 = Rs.4,72,500/- 6. Amount under conventional heads: (i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/- (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 4) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) Rs.18,500 + Rs.18,500 + Rs.1,94,000 = Rs.2,31,000/- 7. Total amount of compensation 7,03,500/- 9. Out of the total compensation as worked out above, the appellant is liable to pay 75% of the total amount, which works out to Rs.5,27,625/-. 10. The amount as recorded above shall be paid alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment/realisation within a period of three months from today. 11. Any amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimant. 12. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in the account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details of anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount shall not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required to open a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17.1 of Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal and others: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318 and in para 9 of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.7 of 2024 In Re:Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims FAFO No. 3309 of 2010 3 Tribunals and Labour Courts. 13. The appeal is dismissed. May 12, 2026 akverma FAFO No. 3309 of 2010 4 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad