While enhancing the motor accident compensation and dismissing the Insurance Company’s appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that even if the claimant was only 16 years old and was not in any gainful employment at the time of the accident, he would be entitled to get compensation on the basis that he was a skilled workman.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge. The Insurance Company had also preferred an appeal.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain held, “In view of this, even if, it is assumed that the claimant was only 16 years old and was not in any gainful employment at the time of the accident even then, he is entitled to get compensation on the basis that he was a skilled workman. Since, the accident occurred on 29.03.2009 and at the time of the accident the minimum wages of a skilled workman prevailing in the State of U.P. was about Rs.4,500/- per month, the claimant is entitled to get compensation on this basis.”

Advocate Amit Kumar Sinha represented the Appellant while Advocate Anubhav Sinha represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant-insurance company that the claimant allegedly suffered only 60% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, but it was considered to be 80% by the tribunal, only on the basis of a certificate issued by the Physiotherapist, which was not admissible in evidence.

On the contrary, it was the case of the claimant-respondent that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the right leg of the claimant was amputated from the knee and his two little toes of left foot were also amputated due to which he suffered 100% functional disability but the tribunal had only assessed the disability of the claimant at only 80% which required enhancement.

Reasoning

The Bench found that in the instant case, due to the injuries suffered by the claimant, his right leg had been amputated through the knee, and he had also suffered amputation of his two small toes in his left foot, due to which, as per the certificate issued by the CMO, Pratapgarh, he suffered 60% permanent disability. The certificate was issued by the duly constituted medical board, whose authenticity was not challenged by the appellant-insurance company by filing any contrary evidence.

The Bench took note of the fact that the claimant had also filed a certificate issued by the Department of Physiotherapy, B.Y.L. Nair Charitable Hospital & T.N.M. College, Bombay, which disclosed that he suffered 75% permanent disability in right lower limb due to right knee disarticulation and 5% permanent disability in left lower limb due to 4th-5th ray amputation, due to which the claimant suffered total disability of 80%.

On a perusal of the written statement filed by the vehicle owner, the Bench noted that the claimant was working as a Khalasi on his truck, which involves physical labour. It was apparent that due to the amputation suffered by the claimant, he was unable to do any job involving physical labour in future and, as such, there was 100% functional disability. The tribunal had only assessed the functional disability at 80%, which required enhancement.

Referring to Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, which states that if the claimant was below 40 years at the time of the accident, he is entitled to compensation for loss of prospects @50% in cases of serious permanent disability, the Bench held the claimant entitled to get compensation for future prospect at the rate of 50% of his income.“Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the amputation suffered by the claimant, compensation towards non pecuniary heads also requires enhancement, since the tribunal has only awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards special diet, which is grossly inadequate.The claimant is also entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects, due to permanent disability”, it added.

Thus, dismissing the Insurance Company’s appeal and allowing the appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, the Bench awarded a compensation of Rs 16,59,510 alongwith interest to the claimant.

Cause Title: Sangam Lal v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:6727)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava Sinha

Respondent: Advocate Anubhav Sinha

Click here to read/download Order









Allahabad High CourtJustice Sandeep Jain

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.