HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 987 of 2012 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Ojha the counsel for the appellant and Sri Sukesh Kumar the counsel for the claimants. 2. The appeal has been preferred against an award dated 30.11.2011 whereby an amount of Rs.5,65,500/- was awarded on account of the injuries sustained by the claimants in an accident. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the claim petition was filed alleging that the claimant was going on a motorcycle and at a particular spot, he was hit by a Maruti Car, which was insured by the appellant and was being driven rashly and negligently, which resulted in substantial injuries to the claimant. It is also pleaded that the claimant was admitted on account of the injuries sustained and subsequently, after recovery, the FIR was lodged after about six days. The disability suffered by the claimant was assessed at 65% and after considering the pleadings and the evidence, the award was passed. 4. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the accident never took place with the Maruti Car as was also pleaded. It is further argued that the FIR was lodged after about five to six days of the alleged incident, which makes the entire accident suspicious. It is further argued that the disability certificate was issued by a Medical Board, in which there was no Orthopedic Surgeon and thus, the reliance on the said disability certificate was erroneous. In the light of the said, it is argued that the appeal is liable to be allowed. No other point has been urged. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mahendra Singh, Ravesh Kumar Singh, Sukesh Kumar The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Vintee Ram And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the amount awarded is justified and the Tribunal has passed the award after considering the evidence. 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, based upon the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed. While deciding the issue no.1, with regard to the factum of the incident, the Tribunal recorded that the registered owner of the Car was one Suman Dhupar. The Tribunal also recorded that the FIR was lodged after the discharge of the claimant from the hospital which was proved by the discharge slip issued by the Hospital at Gwalior. The Tribunal also held that as the claimant was undergoing treatment, the FIR was lodged with a some delay. It was also recorded that a charge-sheet was also filed against the owner of the Car. Thus, it was held that the accident took place on account of negligence of the car driver, which was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The said finding of fact needs no interference on the arguments raised by the appellants. 7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, reliance was placed upon a disability certificate, which assessed the disability at 65%. As the claimant claimed that he was working an agricultural work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.4500/- per month, on which the loss of income was assessed at 65% and thus, the early loss was assessed at Rs.35,160/- on which a multiplier of 15 was applied and the amount was calculated at Rs.5,65,500/-. On the said amount, on account of pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- was awarded; towards loss of conjugal relations, Rs.25000/- was awarded, towards diet, Rs.2000/- was awarded and for the vehicle suffering damages, Rs.2000/- was also awarded. 8. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that the medical certificate issued depicting the disability was signed by the Medical Board, which did not comprise of a Orthopedic Surgeon, deserves to be rejected as, from the award or otherwise, there is no material to suggest that any attempt was made by the Insurance Company to summon the doctors who had issued the medical certificate, to discredit the same. In absence of any evidence, the submission made by the counsel for the FAFO No. 987 of 2012 2 appellant cannot be considered. No error could be pointed out in the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal warranting interference at this stage. 9. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. 10. The entire amount shall be paid within a period of three months as directed. Any amount already paid shall be debited from the amounts as directed. Any amount deposited before this court shall be remitted to the Tribunal for being paid in accordance with law. 11. 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 Tribunals and Labour Courts. May 12, 2026 VNP/- FAFO No. 987 of 2012 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad