THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusVINTEE RAM AND OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 987 of 2012

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

Vintee Ram And Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Rajeev Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Mahendra Singh, Ravesh Kumar Singh,
                                   Sukesh Kumar

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

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Ojha the counsel for the appellant and Sri Sukesh
Kumar the counsel for the claimants.

2. The appeal has been preferred against an award dated 30.11.2011
whereby an amount of Rs.5,65,500/- was awarded on account of the
injuries sustained by the claimants in an accident.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the claim petition was filed alleging that the
claimant was going on a motorcycle and at a particular spot, he was hit by
a Maruti Car, which was insured by the appellant and was being driven
rashly and negligently, which resulted in substantial injuries to the
claimant. It is also pleaded that the claimant was admitted on account of
the injuries sustained and subsequently, after recovery, the FIR was
lodged after about six days. The disability suffered by the claimant was
assessed at 65% and after considering the pleadings and the evidence, the
award was passed.

4. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the accident
never took place with the Maruti Car as was also pleaded. It is further
argued that the FIR was lodged after about five to six days of the alleged
incident, which makes the entire accident suspicious. It is further argued
that the disability certificate was issued by a Medical Board, in which
there was no Orthopedic Surgeon and thus, the reliance on the said
disability certificate was erroneous. In the light of the said, it is argued
that the appeal is liable to be allowed. No other point has been urged.
                                                        FAFO No. 987 of 2012
                               2


5. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the
amount awarded is justified and the Tribunal has passed the award after
considering the evidence.

6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, based upon the
pleadings, as many as five issues were framed. While deciding the issue
no.1, with regard to the factum of the incident, the Tribunal recorded that
the registered owner of the Car was one Suman Dhupar. The Tribunal
also recorded that the FIR was lodged after the discharge of the claimant
from the hospital which was proved by the discharge slip issued by the
Hospital at Gwalior. The Tribunal also held that as the claimant was
undergoing treatment, the FIR was lodged with a some delay. It was also
recorded that a charge-sheet was also filed against the owner of the Car.
Thus, it was held that the accident took place on account of negligence of
the car driver, which was duly insured with the appellant Insurance
Company. The said finding of fact needs no interference on the arguments
raised by the appellants.

7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, reliance was placed upon
a disability certificate, which assessed the disability at 65%. As the
claimant claimed that he was working an agricultural work and was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the income at
Rs.4500/- per month, on which the loss of income was assessed at 65%
and thus, the early loss was assessed at Rs.35,160/- on which a multiplier
of 15 was applied and the amount was calculated at Rs.5,65,500/-. On the
said amount, on account of pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- was awarded;
towards loss of conjugal relations, Rs.25000/- was awarded, towards diet,
Rs.2000/- was awarded and for the vehicle suffering damages, Rs.2000/-
was also awarded.

8. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that the medical
certificate issued depicting the disability was signed by the Medical
Board, which did not comprise of a Orthopedic Surgeon, deserves to be
rejected as, from the award or otherwise, there is no material to suggest
that any attempt was made by the Insurance Company to summon the
doctors who had issued the medical certificate, to discredit the same. In
absence of any evidence, the submission made by the counsel for the
                                                                                             FAFO No. 987 of 2012
                                                                   3


                                    appellant cannot be considered. No error could be pointed out in the
                                    monthly income assessed by the Tribunal warranting interference at this
                                    stage.

                                    9. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

                                    10. The entire amount shall be paid within a period of three months as
                                    directed. Any amount already paid shall be debited from the amounts as
                                    directed. Any amount deposited before this court shall be remitted to the
                                    Tribunal for being paid in accordance with law.

                                    11. 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
                                    Tribunals and Labour Courts.



                                                                                            (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    VNP/-




Digitally signed by :-
VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad