Allahabad High Court

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusYOGENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: PANKAJ BHATIA

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the non‑impleadment of the driver is not fatal and the correct deduction is one‑half, resulting in a higher compensation award.

Summary

The appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appealed against a tribunal award of Rs.4,51,700 for the death of Kuldeep Kumar, arguing that the driver of the offending tractor was not impleaded and that the deduction of one‑third of the loss as personal expenses was illegal because the deceased was unmarried. The respondents contended that the driver’s non‑impleadment was not fatal to the claim and that the compensation should be higher, with a half deduction for personal expenses. The High Court held that the driver, though a necessary party, need not be impleaded when the claim is against the vehicle owner/insurer, and that the correct deduction is one‑half for an unmarried deceased. Applying precedents on income, age, multiplier and heads of loss, the Court recalculated the compensation to Rs.8,32,660 with interest at 7% per annum. The appeal was dismissed and the insurer was directed to pay the enhanced amount within three months.

Issues considered

Whether the non‑impleadment of the driver of the vehicle defeats the claim against the insurer
Whether the deduction for personal expenses should be one‑third or one‑half given the deceased was unmarried
Whether the quantum of compensation calculated by the tribunal is adequate under prevailing case law

Subjects

motor accident
death compensation
personal expenses deduction
non-impleadment of driver
insurance liability
multiplier
interest

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2540 of 2008

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

Yogendra Sharma And Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : B.B. Kesarwani, Bibhuti Narayan
Singh, Dinesh Kumar Tiwari

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

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Bibhuti Narayan
Singh, learned Counsel for the claimants.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company
against the judgment and award dated 23.11.2015 whereby an amount of
Rs.4,51,700/- was awarded on account of death of the deceased along
with 6% interest.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the award is bad
in law as the driver of the vehicle was not impleaded as a party
respondent. It is further argued that the deduction of 1/3rd towards
personal expenses was wrongly applied, as the deceased was unmarried
and, therefore, 1/2 ought to have been deducted towards personal
expenses.

4. The Counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand argues
that non-impleadment of the driver would not be fatal to the claim
petition. It is further argued that although no cross-objection has been
filed, it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation. He
further argues that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly
inadequate even the multiplayer is wrongly applied.

5. In the light of the aforesaid arguments, what transpires from the record
is that the deceased Kuldeep Kumar was coming to his village on the left
side of the road when a tractor bearing No.UP81H 6612 driving by its
driver rashly and negligently hit him which resulted in substantial injury
and death of the deceased. The claim petition was filed by the father,
mother and sister of the deceased alleging that the deceased was
unmarried and was aged about 23 years. The deceased was earning
Rs.4,700/- per month. In the light of the said pleadings, as many as, five
issues were framed by the Tribunal.
FAFO No. 2540 of 2008
2

6. A perusal of the issues on record reveals that the driver was a necessary
party; however, no issue regarding non-impleadment was framed, nor was
any application filed by the Insurance Company seeking framing of such
an issue. Thus, on that count, the first submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant merits rejection even otherwise the award has been
claimed against the owner of the vehicle which was insured by the
Insurance Company, thus, non-impleadment of the driver of the vehicle
would not be fatal as has been argued by the Counsel for the appellant.

7. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the only submission of the
Counsel for the appellant is that the deduction of 1/3rd as personal
expenses is bad in law as the deceased was unmarried. Although no cross
objection has been filed, it is the duty of the Tribunal or the Court to
award just and fair compensation to the claimant, in accordance with law.
This aspect was also considered by this Court in the case of Surendra
Pratap and others vs State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.1002174 &
Writ-C No.1002173); (2022) 05 ILR A473.

8. Considering the fact that the income of the deceased was assessed as
Rs.4,300/- per month and there is no dispute on that count, and the age of
the deceased was 25 years, which is also not disputed. The quantum as
per the judgment of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another; (2009) 6 SCC 121; Megma General
Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors;
(2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay
Sethi and others; 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.) would worked out as under:

Sl.
Head Compensation awarded
No.
1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs.4,300/- per month
Adding 40% in the light of the judgement
2. Rs.6,020/- per month
in Pranay Sethi's case (supra)
3. Net yearly income Rs.72,240/-
Rs.72,240 x 1/2 =
As per the Sarla Verma's case (Supra), the Rs.36,120/-
4. deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses After deduction :
would apply as the deceased was unmarried Rs.72,240 - Rs.36,120 =
Rs.36,120/-
Rs.36,120 x 18 =
5. Applying multiplier of '18'
Rs.6,50,160/-

Amount under conventional heads: Rs.18,500 +
6.
Rs.18,500 +
(i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/-
FAFO No. 2540 of 2008
3

(ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per
Rs.1,45,500 =
Pranay Sethi's case (supra)
(iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per Rs.1,82,500/-
person (Rs.48,500 x 3) as per Magma
General Insurance Company Limited
(supra)

Rs.6,50,160

+ Rs.1,82,500
7. Total amount of compensation
Rs. 8,32,660/-

9. The amount as recorded above shall be paid by the appellant to the
claimants within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @
7% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment/realisation and the
amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid
amount to be paid to the claimant.

10. The application filed by the claimants for withdrawal of the money is
disposed off as this Court had already directed that the entire amount shall
be paid to the claimants within a period of three months.

11. The appeal is dismissed.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
May 7, 2026
akverma

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…