Allahabad High Court
AKHATAR ALI @ AKHTAR HASAN @ ZIYAversusRAM BHAJAN GUPTA AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court affirmed the tribunal's award, finding no basis for additional compensation for future prospects or further non‑pecuniary damages.
Summary
The appellant‑claimant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained by her husband, Akhtar Ali, in a motorcycle collision on 28‑Oct‑2002. The tribunal had granted Rs 1,12,901.81 with interest, including medical expenses and attendant charges, but no addition for future loss of income or other non‑pecuniary heads. The appellant argued that the award was inadequate because the injured suffered 60% permanent disability, loss of earnings, and incurred further medical costs. The respondents contended that the injured continued in his municipal employment, there was no loss of income, and the medical bills presented were fully accounted for. The High Court held that no evidence showed loss of salary or additional expenses, and that the attendant charge of Rs 50,000 was sufficient for other non‑pecuniary losses, thus affirming the tribunal's award and dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether an addition for future loss of income should be awarded when the injured party continued in employment after the accident.
- Whether the compensation awarded for medical expenses and non‑pecuniary heads is adequate.
- Whether the tribunal's award should be enhanced or modified.
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- disability
- loss of income
- non‑pecuniary damages
- future prospects
- interest
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2990 of 2006
Akhatar Ali @ Akhtar Hasan @ Ziya
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ram Bhajan Gupta And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Rishi Bhushan
Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri
Achintya Kumar, holding brief for Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3 are present.
2. This appeal, at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation, challenges the judgment and award dated 3.8.2026 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4,
Shahjahanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 101 of 2003, whereby a sum of Rs.
1,12,901.81/- was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum.
3. According to the appellant-claimant, her husband, Akhtar Ali, was hit by a
motorcycle on 28.10.2002 at about 1:00 p.m. while he was proceeding
towards Puvaya Road for his personal work. The said motorcycle, bearing
registration no. UP 27 D 9725, was being driven rashly and negligently by
its driver, who came from behind and hit Akhtar Ali. Akhtar Ali sustained
serious injuries to his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately
rushed to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur, from where he was referred to
KGMC, Lucknow. He remained admitted from 21.10.2002 to 9.11.2002 and
was thereafter regularly called upon by the doctors for check-ups and
monitoring of his health.
4. Akhtar Ali became permanently disabled and was unable to walk on his
own. He suffered 60% disability, which is evident from the disability
certificate issued by the CMO. It was further stated that, at the time of the
incident, Akhtar Ali was employed with Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur, and
was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,092/- per month. Hence, a compensation of
Rs. 7,80,000/- was prayed for by the appellant-claimant.
FAFO No. 2990 of 2006
2
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned tribunal has
awarded inadequate compensation without taking into account the loss of
income allegedly suffered by injured Akhtar Ali as a consequence of the
incident. He was admitted to the hospital for a long period and had to visit
the doctors regularly for check-ups even after his discharge from KGMC.
The medical expenses incurred by the claimant were also not properly
considered. Although Akhtar Ali sustained 60% disability, the learned
tribunal did not consider any addition towards future prospects. The learned
tribunal had grossly erred in not adding future prospects to the income of the
injured. No compensation was awarded under the non-pecuniary heads to
which an injured person is entitled in a claim petition. Compensation under
various non-pecuniary heads, such as healthy diet, transportation expenses,
etc., was neither considered nor awarded. Therefore, the impugned award
requires modification by taking into account the addition towards future
prospects to the income of the injured, along with additional compensation
under the non-pecuniary heads.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claimant
had asserted before the learned tribunal that, at the time of the accident, the
injured was employed with Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur, and was drawing a
salary of Rs. 5,092/- per month. However, when the claimant was examined
before the tribunal as PW-1, Smt. Shahjahan Begum, she categorically
admitted that her husband was still continuing in his employment and that
his services had not been terminated. Therefore, there was no occasion to
consider any addition towards future prospects to his income, as there was
no loss of income. Hence, there was no requirement to consider any addition
towards future prospects. It was further submitted that all the bills pertaining
to medical expenses amounting to Rs. 57,901.81/- were accepted and the
said amount was awarded as compensation by the learned tribunal. Apart
from the said medical expenses, the claimant had not adduced any additional
evidence to establish any other expenses incurred towards medical treatment.
Although no amount under the non-pecuniary heads, except Rs. 50,000/-
towards attendant charges, was awarded by the learned tribunal, considering
the fact that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been awarded under the head of
attendant charges in the year 2006 in respect of an accident which occurred
in 2002, the total amount of compensation awarded cannot be held to be
inadequate. Therefore, there is no need either to modify or enhance the
amount awarded by the learned tribunal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by
the learned tribunal. It has been categorically admitted by the appellant-
claimant that the injured was still continuing in his employment after the
FAFO No. 2990 of 2006
3
accident. Although the appellant-claimant had stated before the tribunal that
her husband was not receiving salary from his department at that time, she
had neither adduced any evidence nor made any claim from which it could
be inferred under what circumstances the injured was denied salary by his
department. If that was the case, it might have been either because he was on
prolonged medical leave or because his services had been terminated. Had
he been discharged from service, considering his permanent disability and
inability to continue in employment, the matter would have required a
different consideration. However, no such fact was placed either before the
tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the finding of the tribunal denying any addition towards future
prospects to the income of the injured. Since there was no loss of income,
there was no occasion to consider any addition towards future prospects.
8. Similarly, all the bills pertaining to medical expenses relied upon by the
claimant were accepted by the tribunal, and an amount of Rs. 57,901.81/-
was awarded under the head of medical expenses. In the absence of any
other evidence establishing additional medical expenses, there was no
justification for awarding any additional amount towards medical expenses.
9. It is true that the learned tribunal has not awarded amounts under various
non-pecuniary heads, as are generally awarded in cases of injury. However,
an amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards attendant charges itself indicates
that, considering the circumstances and duration of treatment in the present
case, the said amount was sufficient to cover the other non-pecuniary heads.
Apart from this, the learned tribunal has also directed payment of interest at
the rate of 9% per annum on the entire award amount.
10. Considering the award in the light of the evidence available on record as
well as the circumstances prevailing in the case, this Court is of the view that
the compensation awarded in favour of the appellant-claimant is sufficient
and adequate. The same does not warrant any modification.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated
3.8.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Court No. 4, Shahjahanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 101 of 2003 is hereby
affirmed.
September 7, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…