HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3030 of 2012 Along with : 1. First Appeal From Order No. 3105 of 2012: Arya Prasad Pandey and another Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. As both the appeals challenges the same judgment and award dated 07.04.2012, hence are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Sumit Kakkar, the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, Sri Amit Kumar Sinha who appears for the claimants and has also filed the cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation as well as Sri Ram Singh, who appears for the owner and challenges the award insofar as it grants the liberty to pay and recover the amounts. Sri Abhinav Shukla appears for the respondent no.1 in appeal no.3105 of 2012. 3. The facts, in brief, are that a fourteen years old boy died on account of an accident with a Truck, which led to filing of a Claim Petition. The submission of the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that the vehicle was not insured on the date of the incident and the cheque given by the owner stood dishonored on the said date. Thus, the insurance company is not liable for payment of said amount. It is further argued that Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Satish Kishore Kakkar, Sumit Kakkar, S.K. Kakkar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar Sinha, Ram Singh The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Arya Prasad Pandey And Others .....Respondent(s) the quantum is on the higher side. 4. The counsel for the respondents claimants argues that the amount awarded is wholly inadequate and places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Tripathi and others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another; Special Leave Petition (C) No.2195 of 2024 decided on 15.12.2025. 5. The counsel for the owner, while arguing his cross appeal argues that although the cheque was dishonored, the same itself would not passion the liability on the owner. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balkar Ram and others; 2013 (5) AWC 5046 (SC). 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, admittedly, the Policy was issued by the Insurance Company. As only because of cheque given by the owner got dishonored, the Insurance Company is denying its right to pay the amount. On perusal of the award impugned, it is clear that the said contention is accepted and the Insurance Company has been granted the right to pay and recover from the owner. Thus, the first submission merits rejection and is accordingly rejected. 7. As regards the compensation, as admittedly the deceased child was aged about 15 years, taking a cue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra), the amount payable is assessed at Rs.5400/- per moth with a 40% increase for future prospects. The amount awarded shall work as under: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.5400/- per month 2. Adding 40% towards future prospects Rs.7560/- per month 3. Net yearly income Rs.90,720/- 4. Deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses Rs.90720/2 = Rs.45,360/- FAFO No. 3030 of 2012 2 5. Applying multiplier of '15' Rs.45360 x 15 = Rs.6,80,400/- 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 2) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) Rs.18,500 + Rs.18,500 + Rs.97000/- = Rs.1,34,000/- 7. Total amount of compensation (Sr.No.5 + Sr.No.6) Rs. 8,14,400/- 8. The amount as recorded above shall be paid alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment/realisation. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today and the amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimant. 9. The cross objection of the owner is dismissed as no material has been placed to suggest that the dishonoured cheque was subsequently paid by the owner. 10. In view thereof, it is clear that there was no valid insurance policy. Thus, the tribunal has rightly directed the the Insurance Company to pay the amount and to recover the same from the owner. 11. The appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company, the appeal of the claimants and the cross objection filed by the owner are disposed off. 12. As the claimants are now major, the entire amount deposited as FD shall also be released in favour of the claimant on their moving proper application. May 7, 2026/VNP/- FAFO No. 3030 of 2012 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad