Allahabad High Court

SMT. NISHA DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusRAMANAND DIXIT AND 3 ORS.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The court modified the tribunal awards, enhancing compensation based on minimum‑wage income and conventional heads, and partially allowed the appeals.

Summary

The case concerns two first appeals against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards for the deaths of Lalit Kumar and Rakesh in a 2013 truck accident. The appellants argued that the deceased earned substantially higher agricultural incomes and sought enhanced compensation, invoking the Supreme Court's principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The respondents contended that no reliable evidence supported the higher income claims, so the tribunal correctly fixed monthly income at Rs 3,000. The High Court held that, although the tribunal was right to reject unproven income, the monthly income should be assessed on the basis of the minimum wage for an unskilled worker (Rs 4,976). Consequently, the court recomputed and increased the compensation to Rs 12,11,992 and Rs 8,85,069 respectively, partially allowing the appeals and directing the insurer to pay the enhanced amounts.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is adequate in view of the alleged incomes of the deceased.
Whether the tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income at Rs 3,000 without sufficient evidence.
Whether compensation should be recomputed based on minimum wages and conventional heads such as future prospects, consortium and loss of dependency.
Whether the appeals seeking enhancement of the awards should be allowed.

Subjects

motor accident
compensation
future prospects
consortium
loss of dependency
minimum wages
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
enhancement of award

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1863 of 2016

Smt. Nisha Devi and 3 others
.....Appellant(s)

Versus
Ramanand Dixit and 3 Ors.
.....Respondent(s)

Along with :
1. First Appeal From Order No. 1864 of 2016:
Smt. Sunita Devi and 4 Ors.
Versus
Ramanand Dixit and 3 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pramod Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhirendra Singh, G.k. Srivastava, Komal
Mehrotra

Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for appellant and Ms. Komal
Mehrotra, Sri G.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 are
present.

2. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident and involve common
questions of fact and law; therefore, they were heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.

3. First Appeal From Order No. 1863 of 2016 has been filed against the
judgment and award dated 14.03.2016 passed in MAC No. 256 of 2013,
whereas First Appeal From Order No. 1864 of 2016 has been filed against
the judgment and award dated 14.03.2016 passed in MAC No. 255 of 2013.
Both the claim petitions arose out of an accident which occurred on
08.04.2013 involving offending Truck No. UP-75-M-0115. Since both the
appeals arise out of the same accident and the impugned judgments and
awards were passed on the same date, they are being considered and decided
together by this common judgment. Both appeals have been filed to enhance
the amount of compensation awarded by learned tribunal.
FAFO No. 1863 of 2016
2

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANTS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on 08.04.2013, deceased
Lalit Kumar and his cousin Rakesh were returning to their home at District
Fatehpur on a motorcycle from Jahanabad towards Ghatampur. At about
4:30 p.m., near the place of occurrence, they were knocked down by
offending Truck No. UP-75-M-0115. In the said accident, both Lalit Kumar
and Rakesh sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

5. So far as MAC No. 256 of 2013, filed by the legal representatives of
deceased Lalit Kumar, is concerned, it is submitted that the tribunal has
awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,58,000/-, which is wholly inadequate.
Lalit Kumar was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and was
earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month from agriculture. The
tribunal, however, assessed his income at only Rs. 3,000/- per month without
any proper basis. It is further submitted that no addition towards future
prospects and no appropriate amount towards consortium has been awarded
in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093. The
compensation, therefore, deserves to be enhanced.

6. In MAC No. 255 of 2013, filed by the legal representatives of deceased
Rakesh, learned counsel submits that Rakesh was aged about 43 years and
was earning Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month from agriculture. Though
his income was claimed and proved on the basis of the evidence available on
record, the tribunal arbitrarily assessed the same at only Rs. 3,000/- per
month. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,47,500/- with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which is also inadequate. It is,
therefore, submitted that the compensation in both the appeals deserves to be
suitably enhanced by taking the actual income of the deceased and by
granting the permissible amount under future prospects, consortium and
other conventional heads.

7. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation
awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads is also not in
accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra). It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation be re-computed
and appropriate amount under the heads of future prospects, consortium and
other conventional heads be awarded in accordance with the principles laid
FAFO No. 1863 of 2016
3

down in Pranay Sethi (supra).

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS

8. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments
and awards and submits that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
both the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, as the appellants failed to adduce
any cogent and reliable evidence to establish the alleged income from
agriculture. The mere assertion that deceased Lalit Kumar was earning Rs.
10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month and deceased Rakesh was earning Rs.
20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month cannot be accepted in the absence of
documentary or other reliable evidence. It is further submitted that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal has been determined on the basis of
the evidence available on record and does not warrant interference. The
claimants cannot seek enhancement by relying upon unproved income. The
judgments and awards passed by the tribunal are, therefore, justified and the
appeals are liable to be dismissed.

Conclusion in FAFO NO. 1863 OF 2016 and 1864/2016

9. Heard learned counsels and perused the records.

10. The factum of accident and death of Lalit Kumar and Rakesh in the
accident dated 08.04.2013 involving Truck No. UP-75-M-0115 is not in
dispute. The principal question requiring consideration in these appeals is
the quantum of compensation payable to their respective legal
representatives. The claimants asserted that both the deceased were earning
substantial income from agriculture. However, no cogent and reliable
evidence has been produced to establish the alleged monthly income of Rs.
10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- in the case of Lalit Kumar and Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.
25,000/- in the case of Rakesh. The tribunal, therefore, rightly did not accept
the claimed income. However, instead of taking the income at Rs. 3,000/-
per month, the income ought to be assessed on the basis of the minimum
wages applicable to an unskilled worker in Uttar Pradesh on the date of
accident. The monthly income is accordingly taken at Rs. 4,976/-.

11. Accordingly, modified compensation in FAFO No. 1863 of 2016 would
be herein below:-

Head Amount
FAFO No. 1863 of 2016
4

Monthly income = Rs. 4,976/-

Annual income = Rs. 59,712/-

Future prospects @ 50% = Rs. 29,856/-

Annual income with future prospects = Rs. 89,568/-

Deduction @ 1/4 = Rs. 22,392/-

Annual contribution to family = Rs. 67,176/-

Loss of dependency × 17 = Rs. 11,41,992/-

Spousal consortium to wife = Rs. 40,000/-

Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/-

Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/-

Total = Rs. 12,11,992/-

Similarly, reassessed amount of compensation in FAFO No. 1864 of 2016
would be:-

Head Amount

Monthly income = Rs. 4,976/-

Annual income = Rs. 59,712/-

Future prospects @ 30% = Rs. 17,913.60/-

Annual income with future prospects = Rs. 77,625.60/-

Deduction @ 1/4 = Rs. 19,406.40/-

Annual contribution to family = Rs. 58,219.20/-

Loss of dependency × 14 = Rs. 8,15,069/-

Spousal consortium to wife = Rs. 40,000/-

Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/-

Funeral expenses= Rs. 15,000/-
FAFO No. 1863 of 2016
5

Total = Rs. 8,85,069/-

12. Accordingly, in FAFO No. 1863 of 2016, the claimants are entitled to
total compensation of Rs. 12,11,992/-, as against Rs. 6,58,000/- awarded by
the tribunal. The award is, therefore, liable to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.
5,53,992/-. So far as FAFO No. 1864 of 2016 is concerned, the claimants are
entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,85,069/-, as against Rs. 5,47,500/-
awarded by the tribunal. The award is, accordingly, liable to be enhanced by
a sum of Rs. 3,37,569/-.

13. Remaining findings shall remain unaffected. The amount already
deposited or paid pursuant to the award of the Tribunal shall be adjusted
from the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly
allowed. The judgments and awards dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC No.256 of 2013 and MAC No.255 of
2013 are modified to the aforesaid extent. The remaining terms and
conditions of the awards shall remain unaltered.

14. 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/parents
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 11, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…