Reserved on 1.7.2026 Delivered on 18.9.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 4292 of 2017 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, challenges the judgment and award dated 9.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 372 of 2014 (Smt. Usha Devi and Ors. vs. Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay and Ors.), whereby a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. 2. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. The finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal has also not been challenged. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The accident took place on 08.03.2014. The deceased, Baijnath, was about 37 years of age at the time of the accident and was stated to be working as a labour under MNREGA Scheme. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum as per notional income, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, applied the multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal consequently awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,15,000/-. 4. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Om Prakash Mishra Smt. Usha Devi And 6 Others .....Appellant(s) Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Rs.36,000/- per annum, whereas it ought to have been assessed at Rs.6000/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act, as the deceased was working as a labour. It was submitted that deduction towards living expenses should be one-fifth instead of one-fourth as the deceased left seven dependants, including wife, children and mother. It was further submitted that the Tribunal failed to make any addition towards future prospects. It was contended that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and deserves enhancement in the light of the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 (4) TAC 345 (SC); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Shukla, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822. It was submitted that, in view of the aforesaid decisions, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires recomputation. 5. Per contra, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper, as no documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased was produced. It was contended that no addition towards future prospects could be made, as the accident occurred prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. It was also submitted that the deduction towards personal and living expenses made by the Tribunal is proper and hence no interference is required. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. The deceased was daily labour and as per Minimum Wages Act, the monthly income would be Rs.6000/- The submission advanced on behalf of the respondent is that no addition towards future prospects can be granted. This submission cannot be accepted. Even prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Courts had been awarding compensation towards future prospects, though by adopting different methods of computation. Considering the number of dependants, deduction towards living expenses should be one-fifth instead of one-fourth. FAFO No. 4292 of 2017 2 7. So far as the issue of consortium is concerned, it is relevant to note that deceased had left seven dependants, out of which, there are four children, one wife and a mother. If consortium as per decision of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). is applied, then the said awarded amount under the loss of consortium itself will be exorbitant. Law is settled that compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act should be just and proper and should not be as bonanza. Hence, a lump sum consortium to all dependants is determined at Rs.2,00,000/- which will be apportioned equally among them. The appellants shall be entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, after granting the enhancement of 10%, in terms of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). 8. Hence, upon recalculation and re-assessment of the award, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Monthly income 6000/- Addition towards future prospects @ 40% 2400/- Total annual income (8400 x 12) 1,00,800/- Deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/5th) 20160/- Loss of dependency 80640/- Multiplier of 15 (age 37 years) 12,09,600/- Loss of consortium (lump sum) 2,00,000/- Loss of estate @ Rs. 15,000/ increased by 10% after every 3 years 16,500/ Funeral expenses @ Rs. 15,000/ increased by 10% 16,500/ FAFO No. 4292 of 2017 3 after every 3 years Total Compensation 14,42,600/- 9. In view of the above, appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,42,600/- along with rate of interest at the rate of 7% per annum in terms of Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, which shall be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. 11. It is further directed that if any amount has already been paid by the Insurance Company pursuant to the award of the learned Tribunal, the same shall be adjusted towards the total amount payable under this judgment. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this order; it shall further be released by the learned Tribunal within four weeks after the deposit of the said amount in favour of the claimants and be disbursed in same proportion as has been held by the Tribunal in its impugned award. (i) The claimants are hereby directed to provide their savings bank account details, having R.T.G.S. facility, within four weeks from today to the learned Tribunal. (ii) The said amount shall be transferred to the savings bank accounts of the claimants by way of passing a judicial order, so that the differential amount may be transferred directly from the account of the Tribunal to the accounts of the claimants, after completing the necessary formalities, if any. September 18, 2026 SK FAFO No. 4292 of 2017 4 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad