HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Kumar And Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. - 2520 of 2025
Decided On : 30-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement to compensation for injuries in motor accident claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessment of compensation considering the claimant's earning capacity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against the tribunal's findings on future prospects. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. judicial precedent on future prospects in disability claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final affirmation of the tribunal's decision and dismissal of appeal. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Bolero No.UP-86T- 8883 against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah in MACP No. 561 of 2021, Sanjay Kumar Vs. Jattari Auto Sales, Aligarh Road & others, whereby, compensation of Rs.21,37,772/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 13.10.2021, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that he is only challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the nature of job and also the disability suffered by him. He also submitted that the tribunal has erred in awarding future prospects to the claimant. It was also submitted that the tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour since it was not clear in which capacity the claimant was working in a factory. It was also specifically submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he is not disputing the factum of accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.
4. The claimant stated in the claim petition that, on the date of the accident, he was about 40 years old and was employed in a bakery factory, earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was also engaged in farming, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, thus having a total monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. He further submitted that, due to the accident, he sustained injuries resulting in the amputation of his right leg above the knee, and has been permanently disabled. As a result, he is unable to perform his daily activities and is also unable to sustain his family. The claimant filed his disability certificate, which was issued by the Government of India, according to which he had suffered 70% permanent disablement, but the tribunal has assessed his functional disability at 60%.
5. The tribunal has duly considered that at the time of the accident, the claimant was working in a Biscuit factory of Bhagwan Das, Agra as a labour and due to amputation of his right let above the knee,he was not in a position to lift weight and was also not capable of transporting the goods from one place to another because he was dependent on others. In this fact situation, the tribunal has assessed his functional disability/earning capacity loss at 60%.
6. The tribunal has assessed the compensation on minimum wages of unskilled labour prevailing at the time of the accident which was Rs.1,10,220/- per annum. The tribunal has awarded future prospect of 40% and has taken the loss of earning capacity at Rs.66,132/- annually. The tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards special diet, Rs.54,000/- attendant expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards hospitality expenses, Rs.1 lac towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- towards disfigurement, Rs.3 lacs towards artificial leg and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life. It is apparent that the tribunal has not awarded any interest on the future prospect of Rs.3,96,792/-.
7. The main submission of learned counsel for the appe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.