Manju Devi v. United India Insurance Company Ltd

4. The facts of the case are that the Claimants, who are Appellants herein, filed the M.V. Claim Case No. 96 of 2013 for compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- against Urmila Devi who is the owner of the offending Bolaro vehicle bearing Registration No. UP67K/6747, Engine No. GHD4A63164, Chassis No. D5B47258 and she is Respondent No. 2 herein. The Insurance Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 Company who is Respondent No. 1 herein was also impleaded as Opposite Party No. 2 before the Tribunal.

5. As per the case of the Claimants/Appellants, deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh was going to Sonebarsha from his house by Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle along with his uncle namely, Chandrama Singh. When they reached near village Parmanpur on N.H. 30 at around 7:45 A.M., one Bolero vehicle, bearing no registration number and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, coming from the side of Arrah, dashed the Motorcycle. Consequently, both the riders fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. The said Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh succumbed to his injury and Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2013 was instituted on the basis of Fardbeyan of co-rider Chandrama Singh, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ganga Shankar Prasad, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Sasaram. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the Bolero vehicle namely, Akhilesh Kumar Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025

6. Further case of the Claimants/Appellants is that the deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and he was working in a Private Company at Daman earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. It has been also claimed by the Claimants/Appellants that the deceased was sole earning member of his family and he used to maintain Claimants/Appellants from his earning. It has been also claimed that the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company were impleaded as Opposite Parties before the Tribunal. On notice, the Opposite Parties, who are Respondents herein, appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim petition filed by the Claimants/Appellants.

7. Opposite Party No. 1/Respondent No. 2 herein, Smt. Urmila Devi filed her written statement claiming that the Claim petition was not maintainable and the Claimants had no valid cause of action to file the Claim Petition against her and her Bolero vehicle was falsely named in Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2013. She had claimed that as a matter of fact, no accident was caused by her Bolero vehicle on the date, time and place as claimed by the Claimants/Appellants. She has further Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 claimed that, as a matter of fact, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Motorcycle by the deceased himself, whereas her driver was driving her Bolero vehicle carefully in a balanced manner and in a right direction and he had no way contributed to the occurrence of the accident. She has also claimed that even the age of the deceased as claimed by the Claimants/Appellants is wrong. She has also denied that the deceased was working in a Private firm and earing Rs.15,000/- per month. However, she has admitted that she is owner of the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. UP67K/6747, but she has claimed that her vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company which was Opposite Party No. 2 before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is also Respondent No.1 herein. She has also claimed that her driver Akhilesh Kumar Singh was having valid driving license at the time of the accident. Hence, she has denied any liability to pay compensation to the Claimants/Appellants.

8. Insurance Company/Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant No. 1 herein also contested the Claim Petition by filing its written statement claiming that the Claim Petition was not maintainable - both on facts and in law. It has also denied involvement of the Bolero vehicle in the accident, submitting Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 that the FIR of Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2013 was instituted against unknown driver of un-numbered Bolero. It has also claimed that the deceased has died due to his own rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle which he has riding. It has also denied that the driver of the Bolero vehicle was driving in rash and negligent manner. It has also disputed the age, income and vocation of the deceased as claimed by the Claimants. However, it has admitted that the said Bolero vehicle belonging to Smt. Urmila Devi was insured by it at the relevant time of the accident. The insurance policy issued by it was valid and effective from 20.02.2013 to 17.02.2014, subject to some limitations, conditions and exceptions as laid down in the policy. It has also claimed that the driver of the Bolero vehicle was however not holding any valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident to drive the said vehicle. It has been claimed that the driving license of the driver of the Bolero vehicle was forged, fake and the same was never issued by the D.T.O., Sasaram. Hence, on account of breach of terms and conditions of the Policy, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants/Appellants.

9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by learned Tribunal : “I. Whether claim petition is legally maintainable ? Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 II. Whether Baliram Singh alias Purnwashi Singh was dashed by Bolero bearing registration No.UP67K/6747 Engine No.GHD4A63164 Chassis No.D5B47258 on 13.07.2013 at around 7.45 A.M near village Parmanpur on N.H.30 coming from east side being rashly and negligently driven by its driver and resultantly he had died during course of treatment ? III. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? IV. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs ?”

10. During trial, the Claimants/Appellants have examined three witnesses : P.W.-1 - Manju Devi who is Claimant No. 1 herself, P.W. 2 - Sriniwas Singh and P.W.-3 - Krishna Singh.

11. Claimants have also brought on record the following documents :- Ext. 1 - Salary Certificate of the deceased, Ext. 2 - Certified copy of the FIR of Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2013 and Ext. 3 – Certified copy of charge- sheet No. 232 of 2013.

12. However, no witness was examined on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by her. However, the Insurance Company has examined one witness, Ravi Kumar Sinha as D.W.-1 and he has also brought on record the following documents:- Ext. A - Investigation Report, Ext. A/1 - Statement of Claimant Manju Devi, wife of the deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh, Ext. A/2 - Certificate of Mukhia of Gram Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 Panchayat Samardiha, Block Sasaram (Rohtas), Ext. A/3 - Photocopy of ration card of the deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh, Ext. A/4 - Photostat copy of the marks sheet of Bihar School Examination Board of the deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh and Ext. B - Certified copy of certificate of Insurance Company.

13. After trial, learned Tribunal found that Motor Accident took place involving Motorcycle of the deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh and Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. UP67K/6747 on 13.07.2013 at 7:45 AM near village Parmanpur on N.H. - 30 on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle by its driver, resulting into death of the decesed Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh. Learned Tribunal has also found that the deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh was 30 years of age at the time of accident. However, it did not find that the deceased was working in Daman and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. It was found that the deceased was basically a farmer at the time of the accident and he was holder of a BPL card. Learned Tribunal presumed notional income of the deceased @ Rs.30,000/- per annum. It has also allowed addition of 30 per cent of the income towards future prospects. On account of four dependents, 1/4th Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 of the income of the deceased was deducted towards his personal expenses. Learned Tribunal also applied multiplier of

18. It has also granted Rs.25,000/- under conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium etc. and hence, total compensation of Rs.5,51,500/- was calculated, out of which, Rs.50,000/- was already paid to the Claimants as ad- interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

14. Learned Tribunal has also found that the offending Bolero vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company who is Respondent No. 1 herein at the time of accident. It has also found that the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving license at the time of the accident and, hence, the insurance company was found to be liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The Claim Petition was also found to be maintainable on account of valid cause of action.

15. No appeal or cross-appeal has been filed, either by Respondent No.1/Insurance Company or owner of the offending vehicle. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the Claimants/Appellants herein for enhancement of the total compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal.

16. I learned counsel Appellants/Claimants and learned counsel for the Respondent Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 No. 1. However, nobody is present on behalf of Respondent No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle, despite valid service of notice.

17. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that despite sufficient evidence in support of monthly income of the deceased, Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, learned Tribunal has erroneously found that the Appellants/Claimants could not prove any income of the deceased and hence, learned Tribunal presumed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs. 30,000/- per annum.

18. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that learned Tribunal has also committed error regarding addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospect. Even compensation under the conventional heads have not been properly granted. Hence, the impugned judgment should be modified by enhancing the total compensation amount payable to the Appellants/Claimants by the Insurance Company, who is insurer of the insured/owner of the offending vehicle.

19. However, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company submits that there is no illegality or infirmity committed in the impugned judgment/award and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 The points for determination by this Court

20. In view of rival submissions of the parties, the following points arise for determination by this Court. (i) Whether the claimants, who are appellants herein, have failed to prove the income of the deceased, Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh ? (ii) Whether the appellants are entitled to get enhancement of the total compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal payable to the appellants by Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company ?

21. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the materials on record, including Trial Court’s record. My point-wise findings are as follows : Point No. 1 Finding in regard to income of the deceased, Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh

22. I find that three witnesses viz., Manju Devi, Sriniwas Singh and Krishna Singh have been examined by the Claimants/Appellants herein in support of the claim petition. A.W. -1, Manju Devi/wife of deceased Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh has clearly deposed in her examination-in- chief that her husband was employed in a private company/ Smit Plastic, Mahavir Industrial Developers, Daman, getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Even in her cross- examination, she has reiterated her statement that her husband Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 was working as supervisor in the company, situated in Daman, though she has stated that at the time of accident, he was doing agricultural work.

23. A.W. -2, Sriniwas Singh, is not a family member of the decased, Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh. He was a co-worker, working with the deceased, Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh in the company, situated in Daman. He was even a room partner of the deceased in Daman. He has further deposed that in March, 2013, he along with the deceased had come to their home and the accident took place subsequently. He has also deposed that the deceased/Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh was getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the company.

24. A.W. -3, Krishna Singh, who is brother of the deceased, has even proved the salary slip of the deceased/ Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh. Salary slip has been exhibited as Ext. 1, showing the deceased getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month from Smit Plastic company, situated in Daman where the deceased was working as a Line Supervisor.

25. As such, I find that finding of learned Tribunal that the Claimants/Appellants have failed to prove the income of the deceased is erroneous. This is against the evidence on Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 record. Hence, I find that the deceased, Baliram Singh @ Purnawashi Singh was having monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- per month at the time of accident.

26. Here it would be pertinent to point out that a proceeding arising out of a claim petition for compensation in regard to motor accident is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. Even the rules of pleadings do not strictly apply in such proceeding and tribunal is required to follow a summary procedure as it deems feet. Moreover, the standard of proof applicable in such proceeding is “preponderance of probability” and not “proof beyond all reasonable doubt” as followed in criminal cases. It is also well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once foundational fact, namely the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, the role of the tribunal is only to calculate the quantum of just compensation, if the accident has taken place by reasons of the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle, and while doing so, the tribunal is not strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Here one may refer to the following judicial precedents: (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509, (ii) Kusum Lata and Ors. Vs. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646, (iii) Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 Corporation, (2020) 13 SCC 486, (iv) Rajwati @ Rajjo Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC

27. In Rajwati @ Rajjo case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases”.

28. In Sunita and others case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held as follows: “22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.”

29. In Kusum Lata and Ors. Case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “9. .................... It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.”

30. In Shila Datta & Ors. Case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “ Nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

10. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependent family members) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by the Tribunals: (i) Proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (the claimants) under Section 166(1) or Section 163-A of the Act or suo motu by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the Tribunal under Section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under Section 166(4) of the Act). (ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. (iii) In a proceedings initiated suo motu by the Tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not implead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party-respondent. When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under Section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 proceedings. (iv) The words “receipt of an application for compensation” in Section 168 refer not only to an application filed by the claimants claiming compensation but also to a suo motu registration of an application for compensation under Section 166(4) of the Act on the basis of a report of an accident under Section 158(6) of the Act. (v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act.) (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry. (Vide Section 169 of the Act.) (vii) The award of the Tribunal should specify the person(s) to whom compensation should be paid. It should also specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them. (Vide Section 168 of the Act.) (viii) The Tribunal should deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned within 15 days from the date of the award. (Vide Section 168(2) of the Act.) We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute.” Point No. 2 Enhancement of Total Compensation

31. Before I consider whether the Appellants /Claimants are entitled to get enhancement of the total Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal, it would be pertinent to discuss the law regarding just compensation which the claimants are entitled to get in view of statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Law Regarding Just Compensation In Case of Death

32. Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, (2009) 2 SCC 770 is a land mark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in regard to assessment of compensation in cases of death. In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation. The principles as laid down in Sarla Verma Case (supra) has been subsequently modified and improved by Hon’ble Apex Court in subsequent judgments which are as follows: (i) Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 (ii) Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554 (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (iv) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130

33. All the aforesaid landmark judgments have Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 been referred to and discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 providing complete prevailing law regarding assessment of compensation in cases of death arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as follows: “Relevant principles for assessment of compensation in cases of death as evolved by judicial dicta.

11. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are : (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

12. In Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 this Court held that to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal ought to take into consideration three factors : (SCC p. 132, para 18) (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

13. In order to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation, the following steps are required to be followed : Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121 “Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.” (emphasis supplied) (a) Deduction for personal and living expenses

14. The personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the family. In Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court took the view that it was necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, it was held that:

14.1. Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd if the number of dependant family members is two to three.

14.2. 1/4th if the number of dependant family members is four to six.

14.3. 1/5th if the number of dependant family members exceeds six.

14.4. If the deceased was a bachelor, and the claim was filed by the parents, the deduction would normally be 50% as personal and living expenses of the bachelor. Subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely to have his own income, and would not be considered to be a Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 dependant. Hence, the mother alone will be considered to be a dependant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be dependants, because they would usually either be independent and earning, or married, or dependant on the father. Thus, even if the deceased was survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant. The deduction towards personal expenses of a bachelor would be 50%, and 50% would be the contribution to the family. 14.5. However, in a case where the family of the bachelor was large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he had a widowed mother, and a large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses could be restricted to 1/3rd, and contribution to the family be taken as 2/3rd.

15. A three-Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 affirmed the standards fixed in Sarla Verma , (2009) 6 SCC 121 with respect to the deduction for personal and living expenses, and held that these standards must ordinarily be followed, unless a case for departure is made out. The Court held : Reshma Kumari case, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : paras 41-43) “41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependant members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants.

42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding para is made out.

43. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows: *** 43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals Patna High Court MA No.1188 of 2016 dt.11-11-2025 shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma 6 SCC 121 subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above.” (emphasis supplied)