MOHD. ANWARversusSATANJAY BHARADWAJ AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1471 of 2012

Mohd. Anwar
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Satanjay Bharadwaj And Another
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Ankit Kapoor, Arvind Agrawal, Hari
                                  Shanker Srivastava, Nikhil Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Rahul Agrawal, Saurabh Srivastava

Court No. - 50
                      HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

I.A. No. 21 of 2025

1. Substitution application has been filed seeking substitution on account
of the death of the sole appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The substitution application is allowed.

3. Let necessary incorporation be carried out in the memo of the appeal
during the course of the day.

Order on Appeal

4. Heard Sri Hari Shanker Srivastava the counsel for the appellant in
Appeal No.1471 of 2012, Sri Rahul Agarwal the counsel for the owner
being Cross Objection No.4 of 2025 and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, the
counsel for the respondent no.2 Insurance Company.

5. The present appeal has been filed challenging the award dated
11.01.2012 insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal. The owner has filed the objection alleging that the
directions for payment of the awarded amount against the owner is
unjustified and the amounts should be paid by the Insurance Company
and not by the owner.

6. The counsel for the Insurance Company argues that the amount has
been rightly awarded against the owner in view of there being no material
                                                         FAFO No. 1471 of 2012
                                2


to suggest that the driver was not have a valid driving license.

7. Considering the said submissions, the appeal as well as the cross
objection are being heard simultaneously.

8. In view of the claim petition filed, it was alleged that the appellant was
sitting in a bus and travelling from Delhi to Kanpur when the bus on the
way became dysfunctional and was made to stand on the road, the
appellant along with other passengers got off from the bus and stood on
the left side road, a Truck No.MP 07 HB-1118 being driven rashly and
negligently hit the various persons, who were standing on the road, which
resulted in substantial injuries to the passengers who are more than ten to
twelve. The appellant preferred a Claim Petition at Kanpur Nagar whereas
other passengers who were also injured in the accident preferred their
claim petition at District Aligarh.

9. The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment awarded an amount
of Rs.1,89,834/-, which was directed to be paid by the owner of the Truck
and not by the Insurance Company.

10. While arguing on the quantum of compensation, the counsel for the
appellant argues that admittedly the appellant was working as a cleaner in
UPSRTC and was drawing the salary of Rs.7500/- per month.
Subsequently, his services were terminated and thereafter the appellant
started working in a private organization as a technical person and was
being paid similar salary of Rs.7500/- per month. The Tribunal admitted
that the appellant, prior to his termination in the year 2005, was drawing
the salary of Rs.7500/- per month from UPSRTC and thereafter no
evidence was adduced to show as to how much salary was being paid by
the Private Auto Garage owner, where the appellant was working and
thus, his annual income was treated at Rs.15000/- per year as notional
income on which the disability at 80% suffered by the appellant was
calculated and the loss of income by the appellant assessed at Rs.12000/-
per year. As the appellant was aged about 54 years as per the finding
recorded by the Tribunal, the multiplier of 11 was added and the financial
loss suffered by the appellant was worked at Rs.1,32,000/- and further an
amount of Rs.5000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. The
                                                        FAFO No. 1471 of 2012
                               3


appellant was also awarded an amount of Rs.52,834/- spent by the
appellant for medical treatment in view of the bills submitted by the
appellant.

11. Considering the submissions of the appellant on the question of
quantum, it is on record that the appellant was drawing a salary of
Rs.7500/- per month up to year 2005 and considering and he suffered the
accident on 08.06.2007, although there was no income proof with regard
to the subsequent engagement in a private workshop, the quantification of
the income by the Tribunal at Rs.15000/- per annum, appears to be wholly
inadequate. Although there is no evidence on record but some guess work
is required for the same and considering the fact that the appellant was a
semi skilled worker, the income of the appellant is ascertained at
Rs.5000/- per month which works to Rs.60,000/- per year. Accepting the
disability ascertained at 80%, the loss of income suffered by the appellant
in terms of the quantum is quantified at Rs.48,000/- per year. On the said
loss of income, the multiplier of 11 is applied as the appellant was aged
about 54 years at the time of death. Thus, the total financial loss suffered
by the appellant is assessed at Rs.48000 X 11 = Rs.5,28,000/- On the said
amount, an amount of Rs.5000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering
for 80% disability suffered, is wholly inadequate, which is enhanced to
Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac). In addition thereto, the appellant would be
entitled to Rs.52,834/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards medical
expenses incurred in the treatment. Thus, the compensation payable to the
appellant works as under:

 Sl.                                                       Compensation
                            Head
 No.                                                         awarded
  1.                  Annual Income                          Rs.48000/-
                                                           48000x11 =
  2.             Applying multiplier of '11'
                                                           Rs.5,28,000/-
        Amount awarded towards pain and suffering
  3.                                                       Rs.1,00,000/-
               for 80% disability suffered
  4.   Medical Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal          Rs.52,834/-

  5.          Total amount of compensation                 Rs.6,80,834/-
                                                        FAFO No. 1471 of 2012
                               4




12. The appeal of the claimant is allowed.

13. Coming to issue of liability with regard to the payment, the Tribunal
has held that the Insurance Company would not be liable for payment of
compensation in view of there being no valid driving license produced by
the owner authorizing the driver to ply the truck, however, it is not
disputed that the same Insurance Company has paid the insurance claim
to various claimants arising out of the same accident taking the said plea.
Even otherwise, it is clearly well settled that on a plea with regard to non
availability of driving license or any other violation of policy, the
direction should be given to the Insurance Company to pay and recover
the same on the Insurance Company establishing that the owner was not
authorized to drive the vehicle.

14. In view thereof, the cross objection/appeal is also allowed. The
liability of satisfying impugned award is shifted on the Insurance
Company leaving it open to the Insurance Company to recover the
amount only on its establishing that the driver of the vehicle was not
authorised to drive the vehicle and establishing that the payments made in
respect of the claim arising out of the same accident were not paid by the
Insurance Company.

15. The amount as assessed shall be paid by the Insurance Company to
the appellant within a period of three months alongwith interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing the the claim till actual payment/realisation.
The entire amount shall be paid at once without insisting on any FDR as
was directed by the Tribunal.

16. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in
the account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details
of anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount
shall not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required
to open a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only
in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para
17.1 of Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal and others: 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 318 and in para 9 of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.7 of 2024 In
                                                                                FAFO No. 1471 of 2012
                                                            5


                                    Re:Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims
                                    Tribunals and Labour Courts.



                                                                                (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    VNP/-




Digitally signed by :-
VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad