1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40202 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 284 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Santosh Singh W/O Late Karan Singh And Ors. Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. Court No.1 And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Prakash Srivastava ***** Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Hari Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. 2. At the outset, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No.1 Smt. Santosh Singh has expired and the appellants have moved an application bearing Civil Misc. Application No.164616 of 2021 to carry out the necessary amendment in the array of the parties in the memo of appeal. It has further been stated that upon the death of the appellant No.1, she is survived by her children, who are already on record as appellants No.2 to 4. Hence, a mere endorsement is to be appended after the name and full particulars of the appellant No.1. 3. The Court has considered the said application and finds that the same is only formal in nature and does not impact the merits nor it can lead to abatement of the proceedings. Since the heirs are already on record, considering the aforesaid aspect, the Court finds that the delay in moving the application is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application for substitution is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants shall carry out necessary amendments in the memo of appeal during the course of the day. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor 2 Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ADJ, Court No.1, Raebareli in Claim Petition No.223/2009, where in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,13,500/- along with 7.5% interest per annum in favour of the claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants while pressing the appeal for enhancement has submitted that the deceased was working in M/s.Morashi Pharmaceutical Private Limited at Lucknow and he was earning Rs.7,800/- per month as salary. 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal while considering the issue relating to grant of compensation has ignored the relevant documents as well as the statement to come to the conclusion that the appellants were not able to establish the income of the deceased. Treating the deceased as an unskilled person, the Tribunal has adopted notional income of Rs.2,500/- per month. It is urged that this is an error committed by the Tribunal. 8. It is further urged that though the multiplier has been appropriately noticed, but no provision has been made for factoring future prospects coupled with the fact that the amount granted under the conventional head is also inappropriate rather meager. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the award dated 08.12.2010 passed in Claim Petition No.223/2009 deserves to be enhanced. 9. Shri Hari Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has refuted the aforesaid submissions and it is urged that there is a clear finding by the Tribunal to indicate that the appellant was unable to 3 establish his income. Neither any document was brought on record relating to the education of the deceased which could give rise to any material regarding the deceased to indicate he possessed skills, however, in absence thereof, the Tribunal was justified in treating the deceased as an unskilled person and a notional income of Rs.2,500/- has been adopted. It is thus, submitted that the grant of compensation should not be considered as a bounty for the claimants and until and unless appropriate evidence is on record to establish the income as well as the dependency, the award impugned does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 11. Certain brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal, are as under:- 12. Shri Karan Bahadur Singh (the deceased) on 11.04.2009 along with his colleague was riding a motorcycle bearing No.UA-04-8121 and were going towards Haldwani. When they had reached near the Laturiya Mahraj Mandir, the offending vehicle bearing No.UA-04-E-3232, was driven being rashly and negligently and it hit the motorcycle, as a result, both i.e. the rider of the motorcycle, namely, Saukat Ali Ansari and its pillion rider i.e. Karan Bahadur Singh (the deceased) suffered grievous injuries and both expired on the spot. 13. It is in this context that the appellants being the legal heirs and dependents of Karan Bahadur Singh had filed a Claim Petition 4 No.223/2009. The said claim petition came to be contested by the owner of the offending vehicle, who had filed his written statement indicating that he was the owner of the said Maruti Car bearing UA-04-E-3232 and that he also possessed a valid driving licence. However, he did not admit to the negligence rather it was urged that it was the motorcyclist, who was negligent and in such circumstances, no award can be passed. Alternately, it was further urged that in case if the award is passed, the same is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company as the vehicle was having a valid insurance for the period 14.02.2009 till 13.02.2010 and since the accident occurred on 11.04.2009 when the said vehicle was duly insured, consequently, any liability was to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 14. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement, however, apart from taking general defences, no specific defence was taken. 15. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed seven issues. After permitting the parties to lead their evidence, the Tribunal while considering the issues No.1 and 2 clearly held that the accident which led to the death of Shri Karan Bahadur Singh on 11.04.2009 was in consequence of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1. The Tribunal also returned findings that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and subsisting driving licence and the said vehicle was duly insured. Thereafter, the Tribunal went ahead to calculate the compensation and it came to a conclusion that since there are no educational documents placed on record to establish as to whether the deceased possessed any skill coupled with the fact that the income certificate which was filed bearing 5 Paper No.Ga-43/2 indicated the basic salary of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month and the he was further granted allowances towards house rent and vehicle maintenance. However, the Tribunal noticed that the official, who had come forward to depose to verify and establish the income of the deceased did not actually carry any identity card with him to establish that he was employed and working in the same Company where the deceased was gainfully employed. 16. It is in the aforesaid context that the income certificate was ignored and thereafter taking a notional income of Rs.2,500/- per month, added Rs.2,500/- for the loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, a total sum of Rs.3,13,500/- was awarded along with 7.5% interest per annum by means of the award dated 08.12.2010. It is this award which is under challenge by the appellants seeking enhancement. 17. Having considered the rival submissions and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the reasoning for discarding the income certificate bearing Paper No.Ga-43/2 does not inspire confidence. It was not disputed nor any contrary evidence was led to indicate that the deceased was working in M/s.Morashi Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The income certificate clearly indicated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month as basic salary and along with the same, allowances towards vehicle maintenance and house rent was also allowed. Since, the CPW-3, namely, Sanjay Kumar Prajapati, who was also an employee of M/s.Morashi Pharmaceutical Private Limited had come and deposed before the Tribunal corroborating the income certificate, however, the same has 6 been discarded by the Tribunal on the ground that this particular witness CPW-3 did not have any Identity Card and authority from the Company to depose. No document such as salary register was produced before the Tribunal, hence, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the aforesaid evidence. 18. The fact which could not be disputed was that the deceased was working in M/s.Morashi Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The claimants had examined CPW-3, who was also a colleague and working in the same company, who came and established the fact and income of the deceased. Merely because he was not carrying an identity card or the salary register it would not impute any disability and the testimony of the said CPW-3 cannot be discarded unless there was any contrary evidence or plea taken by the owner/Insurance Company. 19. The record further indicates that neither the owner of the offending vehicle nor the Insurance Company led any evidence. Even if at all any plea was taken in the written statement, but the fact remains that none entered into the witness-box to establish the said plea. Hence, the contention in the written statement cannot partake the nature of proof. This fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the insurance company that none had put in appearance or entered into the witness-box on behalf of either the owner/driver or the Insurance Company. Even in the cross-examination, there is no grave discrepancy which could cast a doubt that the statement of either the claimants witnesses or the CPW-3, who had entered into the witness-box failed to establish the income. Thus, the Tribunal erred in discarding the income certificate and moreover even if the 7 deceased did not file any educational documents will not mean or give rise to any inference, in absence of any contrary evidence, that the deceased was unskilled, especially when he was working with a Pharmaceutical Company. Hence, the income of the deceased safely be considered as Rs.5,000/- i.e. basic salary plus house rent. 20. This Court further finds that even while calculating the compensation, the Tribunal has not considered or factored for the future prospect. Admittedly, the deceased was survived by his wife and three minor children and in the circumstances there is no adequate consideration regarding the grant of consortium not only to the wife but also for the children. The amount granted towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is also on much lower side, hence, this Court is of the clear opinion that the award which has been made by the Tribunal is not just and fair compensation for the deceased. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court re-determines the compensation as under:- Income = Rs.5,000/- p.m. Age = 42 Years Multiplier = 14 Add: Future Prospect @ 25% = Rs.1,250/- p.m. Net Income: 5000+1250 = Rs.6.250/- p.m. After deduction of 1/3rd = Rs.4,167/- p.m. Thus compensation payable 4,167x12x 14 = Rs.5,50,044/- Add: Loss of Estate = Rs.10,000/- Add: Funeral expenses = Rs.10,000/- Add: Consortium for wife = Rs.40,000/- Consortium for children = Rs.40,000/- ------------------------------------ Thus, total compensation payable shall be = Rs.6,50,044/- ------------------------------------ 22. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds that the appellants shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs.6,50,044/- along 8 with 7.5% interest per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Any amount already paid to the claimants-appellants shall be adjusted from the said sum and any shortfall shall be payable along with updated interest within a period of sixty days, failing which, the appellants shall be entitled to recover the same through the Tribunal. 23. It is also clarified that there has been no cross appeal either by the owner or the Insurance Company, hence, the findings regarding the negligence of the offending vehicle bearing UA-04-E-3232 in causing the accident and the issue regarding the driving licence and the Insurance of the vehicle are not under challenge. Hence, they are confirmed. 24. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ADJ, Court No.1, Raebareli in Claim Petition No.223/2009 is modified to the above extent and now the appellants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,50,044/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as already provided by the Tribunal, and the disbursement of the compensation amongst the claimants shall also follow the directions of the Tribunal. Costs are made easy. 25. The record of the Tribunal, if any, shall be returned expeditiously. Order Date :- 15.07.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench