NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMUKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3309 of 2010

National Insurance Company Ltd.
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Mukesh Kumar And Another
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Anupam Shukla, Komal Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Dushyant Kumar, Sachin Kumar, Yash
                                  Raj Verma

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

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of
the respondents even in the revised list.

2. The present appeal has been filed challenging an award dated
03.08.2010 whereby, the amount of Rs.2,65,250/- was awarded, which
amounted to 75% of the total financial dependency worked in favour of
the claimants at Rs.3,51,000/-.

3. The Counsel for the appellant argues that in terms of the assertions
made in the claim petition, it was urged that the deceased was travelling
as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, which met to an accident with bus,
which resulted into his death.

4. The claim petition was contested by arguing that the accident was
never took place. The deceased died on account of the motorcycle
colliding with a tree and not to the bus and thus the factum of the accident
itself was disputed. The tribunal considered the testimony of two
witnesses, namely, PW-1 and PW-2. The PW-2 was the driver of the
motorcycle and his testimony was considered by the Tribunal for
recording a finding that the accident took place in between the motorcycle
and the bus. The testimony of the driver of the bus was also recorded who
had denied the factum of the accident, however, his testimony was
disbelieved for the reason that in the FIR, a final report had been filed and
a protest petition was also filed. The driver was summoned by the trial
court. Considering the two testimonies, the Tribunal recorded a finding of
                                                       FAFO No. 3309 of 2010
                                2


fact that the accident had taken place inter se in between the motorcycle
and the bus.

5. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of
the bus driver categorically denied the factum of the accident, however,
no assertion is made with regard to the testimony of the eyewitness and
the person involved in the said accident, namely, the person, who was
driving the motorcycle. In the cross-examination of the said PW-2 also
did not discard the testimony with regard to the factum of the accident,
thus, the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant merits
rejection.

6. As regards the compensation, although no cross-appeal has been
preferred by the respondents, it is well settled that it is the duty of the
court/ tribunal to ensure that the just and proper compensation is to be
paid.

7. In the present case, it was claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month, however, his income was assessed as notional
income of Rs.3,000/- per month. No future prospects was added. The
tentative age of the victim was around 45 years and no pecuniary damages
in terms of the law as explained in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673
(S.C.) and in the case of Megma General Insurance Company Limited vs
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 has been
awarded.

8. In view thereof, the just compensation in the present case would work
out as under:

Sl.
                         Head                      Compensation awarded
No.
 1.    Monthly notional income of the deceased      Rs.3,000/- per month
      Adding 25% in the light of the judgement
 2.                                                 Rs.3,750/- per month
           in Pranay Sethi's case (supra)
 3.               Net yearly income                      Rs.45,000/-
                                                     Rs.45,000 x 1/4th =
 4. Deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses
                                                        Rs.11,250/-
                                                        FAFO No. 3309 of 2010
                                3


                                                       After deduction :
                                                    Rs.45,000 - Rs.11,250 =
                                                         Rs.33,750/-
                                                        Rs.33,750 x 14 =
  5.          Applying multiplier of '14'
                                                         Rs.4,72,500/-

          Amount under conventional heads:

               (i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/-             Rs.18,500 +
        (ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per          Rs.18,500 +
  6.            Pranay Sethi's case (supra)              Rs.1,94,000 =
        (iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per
                                                         Rs.2,31,000/-
         person (Rs.48,500 x 4) as per Magma
         General Insurance Company Limited
                           (supra)
           Total amount of compensation
  7.                                                        7,03,500/-


9. Out of the total compensation as worked out above, the appellant is liable
to pay 75% of the total amount, which works out to Rs.5,27,625/-.

10. The amount as recorded above shall be paid alongwith interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of claim till actual payment/realisation within a period
of three months from today.

11. Any amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the
aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimant.

12. 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
Re:Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims
                                                                       FAFO No. 3309 of 2010
                                                                   4


                                    Tribunals and Labour Courts.

                                    13. The appeal is dismissed.



                                                                       (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    akverma




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