UMESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHERversusUTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1020 of 2026

Umesh Chandra And Another
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And
Another                                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Amrit Shanker Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :

Court No. - 39
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.01.2026
passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 395 of
2017 (Umesh Chandra and another vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation and another), whereby compensation has been awarded on
account of the death of Smt. Ramvati in a road motor accident.

3. The claim petition was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act seeking compensation of Rs. 33,90,000/- along with interest from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the
settled principles of law. It has been argued that relevant factors concerning
the deceased were not properly appreciated and adequate interest has not
been awarded.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a housewife. The learned
Tribunal has considered the age, income, multiplier, and future prospects
while determining the compensation.

6. The age of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as 50
years. Though no conclusive documentary evidence has been brought on
record to establish the exact age, the Tribunal has determined the same on
the basis of available material. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
such assessment does not warrant interference.
                                                         FAFO No. 1020 of 2026
                                2

7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (SMT) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another;
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the multiplier applicable to the age
group of 50 years is 13, which has rightly been applied by the learned
Tribunal.

8. As regards the income of the deceased, it has been alleged that she was
earning approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month through agricultural activities
and cattle rearing. However, no cogent or documentary evidence has been
adduced in support thereof.

9. In the absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an
unskilled labourer. The said approach is in consonance with the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar vs The
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.; (2022) 17 SCC 321 decided on 17
October, 2022 (Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 2022) wherein it is held in
paragraph 21 ... "This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, has aptly
held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages
notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely
detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the
deceased."

10. Accordingly, the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 7,400/-
per month, as per the applicable notification under the Minimum Wages Act
for the relevant period (01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018). The deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal expenses has also been rightly made.

11. The learned Tribunal has further awarded compensation under
conventional heads, namely loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral
expenses, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi; (2017) 16 Supreme Court
Cases 680.

12. So far as future prospects are concerned, the addition of 10% is in
accordance with the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) for self-
employed persons within the age bracket of 40 to 50 years.

13. With regard to the issue of interest on future prospects, this Court finds
that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that interest is not payable on the
component of future prospects, as the same represents income yet to accrue.
The said view is in consonance with the principles of just compensation and
has also been followed by this Court (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Seema Devi and
                                                                                             FAFO No. 1020 of 2026
                                                                     3

                                    others, decided on 24.06.2024.

                                    14. The learned Tribunal, in terms of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act
                                    read with the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (as amended up to 2020), has
                                    awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum as simple interest. The learned
                                    Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the
                                    Minimum Wages Act and has awarded compensation accordingly. It has
                                    further held that interest is not payable on the amount representing future
                                    prospects, as the same is yet to be earned. Therefore, denial of interest on
                                    future prospects appears to be in consonance with the principles of just
                                    compensation and equity.

                                    15. In view of all the aforesaid facts, reasons, circumstances, and provisions
                                    of law, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned award
                                    dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim
                                    Petition No. 395 of 2017 (Umesh Chandra and another vs. Uttar Pradesh
                                    State Road Transport Corporation and another). The appeal lacks merit and
                                    is not liable to be admitted.

                                    16. Accordingly, the FAFO is dismissed.

                                    April 24, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                              (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad