HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2727 of 2008 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.5.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No.250 of 2007 (Pramod Kumar vs. Smt. Sunita & Anr.) whereby an award of Rs.4,00,600/- has been passed in favour of the claimant and against the Insurance Company. 3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the respondent/injured before the Tribunal with the assertions that he was knocked down by a Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL 4CQ 2287 on 6.2.2007 when he, on his motorcycle, was going from Meerut towards Delhi within the circle of Police Station Pratapur. It was further asserted that the driver of the said offending vehicle was driving recklessly and negligently. It was stated that the injured sustained serious injuries and was admitted in Subharti Medical College where he remained admitted from 6.2.2007 to 19.2.2007. Later on, he was shifted to Kailash Hospital, Meerut for his further treatment where he remained admitted upto 21.2.2007. It was also stated that respondent-injured suffered permanent disability of 45%. Said disability occurred in his both lower and upper limbs. An FIR in this respect was lodged and charge-sheet was thereafter Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Baleshwar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra, Mishra Vikas Kumar Prabhunath, V.C.Dixit, V.P. Mishra, Vijay Prakash Mishra Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Div. Mg. .....Appellant(s) Pramod Kumar And Another .....Respondent(s) submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, upon examination of the evidences produced before it, awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- to the respondent-injured. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the findings regarding the income of the respondent-injured. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the respondent-injured himself was negligent as he at the time of accident was driving his own motorcycle. The injured had not produced his own driving licence nor has impleaded the Insurance Company which had insured the vehicle of the injured person. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the claim petition filed by the injured was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It was further submitted that respondent- injured miserably failed to prove his income and yet his income of Rs.4,000/- per month was assessed by the Tribunal without any evidence in respect thereof. It was further submitted that there was no proof regarding the age of the injured person and he claimed himself to be about 28 years at the time of accident. The award was passed by applying the criteria laid down in Second Schedule to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act which manifests that multiplier of 17 has to be applied in cases where the injured / deceased is within the age of 25 - 30 years. However, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18. 5. It was submitted that Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured person and had awarded excess amount of compensation against the norms settled under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Therefore the compensation awarded to the respondent injured which is excessive is liable to be reduced and the injured should also be held negligent towards the alleged accident. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-injured submitted that salary slip on behalf of the injured was produced before the Tribunal and the same was taken into account for determining the income of the injured. The Tribunal has not committed any irregularity in determining the income of the injured person. It was further submitted that disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer was produced before the FAFO No. 2727 of 2008 2 Tribunal indicating 45% disability of the injured but same was reduced to 40% by the Tribunal. It was also mentioned that Tribunal has not awarded any compensation by adding income towards future prospects of the respondent-injured. It was contended that the Tribunal on its own had already decided the compensation of the injured on lower side and hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference thereby reducing the same. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 8. It is very much apparent that injured-claimant had not proved his income as required under the law. Certain documents in respect of claimant's income were produced before the Tribunal but were not proved in accordance with law. However, even if it is assumed that respondent- injured was unable to prove his income, then, it is pertinent to note that he at the time of accident was a young person aged about 28 years and it cannot be ruled out that he must have been earning some income at the relevant time. Even if there was no proof of income then also the income of the injured would have been assessed at least Rs. 3,000/- per month. Hence, the income determined at Rs. 4,000/- per month by the Tribunal, under the circumstances as stated above, cannot be held to be either excessive or exorbitant. 9. So far as the issue of multiplier is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same also does not warrant any interference, Although Tribunal instead of applying multiplier of 17 has applied multiplier of 18 because, but on other hand, it instead of considering disability of 45%, has reduced it to 40%. 10. From the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal and compensation determined by it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is upheld. September 18, 2026 SK FAFO No. 2727 of 2008 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad