Allahabad High Court

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THRU DIV. MG.versusPRAMOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award, finding no error in the income assessment, multiplier applied, or disability reduction.

Summary

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.4,06,000 compensation to Pramod Kumar for injuries sustained when his motorcycle was hit by a Maruti car on 6 February 2007, assessing his monthly income at Rs.4,000 and applying a multiplier of 18 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company appealed, contending that the claimant was negligent, had not proved his income, and that the Tribunal erred by using an incorrect multiplier and by reducing the disability percentage from 45% to 40%. The claimant’s counsel argued that salary slips were produced and that the Tribunal correctly determined the income and disability. The High Court examined the evidence and held that, even if the income was not fully proved, a reasonable estimate of at least Rs.3,000 per month was appropriate and the Tribunal’s Rs.4,000 figure was not excessive. The Court also found that the use of multiplier 18, despite the usual 17 for the 25‑30 age bracket, was justified given the reduced disability assessment. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Tribunal’s award was proper and required no alteration. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the award upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's monthly income without satisfactory proof.
Whether the multiplier applied under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was incorrect.
Whether the reduction of the disability percentage from 45% to 40% affected the compensation award.
Whether the claimant's alleged negligence should reduce the compensation.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act — s. 163-A

Subjects

motor accident
compensation
income assessment
multiplier
disability percentage
insurance
Section 163-A
Motor Vehicles Act
negligence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2727 of 2008

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Div.
Mg.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Pramod Kumar And Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra, Mishra Vikas Kumar
Prabhunath, V.C.Dixit, V.P. Mishra, Vijay
Prakash Mishra

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

1. Heard Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for
the respondents/claimants.

2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and decree
dated 28.5.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in
M.A.C.P. No.250 of 2007 (Pramod Kumar vs. Smt. Sunita & Anr.)
whereby an award of Rs.4,00,600/- has been passed in favour of the
claimant and against the Insurance Company.

3. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the
respondent/injured before the Tribunal with the assertions that he was
knocked down by a Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL 4CQ 2287 on
6.2.2007 when he, on his motorcycle, was going from Meerut towards
Delhi within the circle of Police Station Pratapur. It was further asserted
that the driver of the said offending vehicle was driving recklessly and
negligently. It was stated that the injured sustained serious injuries and
was admitted in Subharti Medical College where he remained admitted
from 6.2.2007 to 19.2.2007. Later on, he was shifted to Kailash Hospital,
Meerut for his further treatment where he remained admitted upto
21.2.2007. It was also stated that respondent-injured suffered permanent
disability of 45%. Said disability occurred in his both lower and upper
limbs. An FIR in this respect was lodged and charge-sheet was thereafter
FAFO No. 2727 of 2008
2

submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, upon
examination of the evidences produced before it, awarded a total amount
of compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- to the respondent-injured. Aggrieved by
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance
Company has filed this appeal challenging the findings regarding the
income of the respondent-injured.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that
the respondent-injured himself was negligent as he at the time of accident
was driving his own motorcycle. The injured had not produced his own
driving licence nor has impleaded the Insurance Company which had
insured the vehicle of the injured person. The Tribunal has failed to
consider that the claim petition filed by the injured was bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. It was further submitted that respondent-
injured miserably failed to prove his income and yet his income of
Rs.4,000/- per month was assessed by the Tribunal without any evidence
in respect thereof. It was further submitted that there was no proof
regarding the age of the injured person and he claimed himself to be about
28 years at the time of accident. The award was passed by applying the
criteria laid down in Second Schedule to Section 163-A of Motor
Vehicles Act which manifests that multiplier of 17 has to be applied in
cases where the injured / deceased is within the age of 25 - 30 years.
However, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18.

5. It was submitted that Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the
injured person and had awarded excess amount of compensation against
the norms settled under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act as well as
the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
judgments. Therefore the compensation awarded to the respondent injured
which is excessive is liable to be reduced and the injured should also be
held negligent towards the alleged accident.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-injured submitted that
salary slip on behalf of the injured was produced before the Tribunal and
the same was taken into account for determining the income of the
injured. The Tribunal has not committed any irregularity in determining
the income of the injured person. It was further submitted that disability
certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer was produced before the
FAFO No. 2727 of 2008
3

Tribunal indicating 45% disability of the injured but same was reduced to
40% by the Tribunal. It was also mentioned that Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation by adding income towards future prospects of the
respondent-injured. It was contended that the Tribunal on its own had
already decided the compensation of the injured on lower side and hence
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any
interference thereby reducing the same.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment passed by the Tribunal.

8. It is very much apparent that injured-claimant had not proved his
income as required under the law. Certain documents in respect of
claimant's income were produced before the Tribunal but were not proved
in accordance with law. However, even if it is assumed that respondent-
injured was unable to prove his income, then, it is pertinent to note that he
at the time of accident was a young person aged about 28 years and it
cannot be ruled out that he must have been earning some income at the
relevant time. Even if there was no proof of income then also the income
of the injured would have been assessed at least Rs. 3,000/- per month.
Hence, the income determined at Rs. 4,000/- per month by the Tribunal,
under the circumstances as stated above, cannot be held to be either
excessive or exorbitant.

9. So far as the issue of multiplier is concerned, this Court is of the view
that the same also does not warrant any interference, Although Tribunal
instead of applying multiplier of 17 has applied multiplier of 18 because,
but on other hand, it instead of considering disability of 45%, has reduced
it to 40%.

10. From the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the award
passed by the Tribunal and compensation determined by it does not
warrant any interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the
impugned award passed by the Tribunal is upheld.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
September 18, 2026
SK

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…