Divya and others v. Indrapal and others, whereby, for the untimely death of Ranjeet in a road acciden

them died on the spot. An FIR was registered on 14.04.2022 at 11:31 hours at PS Nawabganj, District Fatehgarh against an unknown vehicle and during investigation, it came to light that Tata Sumo UP-84-T-3403 was involved in the accident and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the above Tata Sumo vehicle. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased, Ranjeet.

3. According to the claimants, Ranjeet use to sell vegetables on a thela. The claimants claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the above profession. The deceased was aged about 28 years on the date of the 2 FAFO No. 2349 of 2025 accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month, granted future prospects at the rate of 40%, taking multiplier of 17 and has accordingly granted compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% to the claimants, which have been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above Tata Sumo vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants. In the absence of the documentary proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal could have assessed the income only on the basis of minimum wages prevalent in the State of U.P., but the Tribunal has assessed the income beyond the minimum wages prescribed at the time of the accident, as such, the award of the Tribunal is erroneous.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment.

6. The impugned judgment records that the deceased used to sell vegetables and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 28 years. The Tribunal has taken his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month and has enhanced it keeping in view his future prospects, by 40%, as such, has determined his income to be Rs.14,000/- per month.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has annexed the notification of the State of U.P. regarding minimum wages payable to unskilled, semi skilled and skilled worker for the period 01.04.2022 till 30.09.2022, which mentions that an unskilled worker is entitled to get minimum wages of Rs.9,530/- per month, a semi skilled worker is entitled to get minimum wages of Rs.10,483/- per month and the skilled worker is entitled to get Rs.11,743/- per month as minimum wages in the State of U.P. for the above mentioned period.

8. According to Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998, 'if a deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of the accident, then he is entitled to get enhancement of his wages at the rate of 50%.'

9. It is apparent that in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 40%, which is erroneous, in the light of the above 3 FAFO No. 2349 of 2025 Rule 220-A. If the income of the deceased is assessed for unskilled worker at the rate of Rs.9,530/- per month and if 50% enhancement for future prospects is added, then it comes to Rs.14,295/- per month but in the instant case, the Tribunal has only awarded compensation taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month, which cannot be deemed erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. In view of this, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarding compensation, accordingly to the claimants.

11. Learned counsel also submitted that since the deceased was not wearing helmet on the date of the alleged accident, as such, it shall be presumed that there was some negligence on his part and, in this situation, the insurer should not have been ordered to indemnify the entire liability.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Anjana Narayan Kamle vs. Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Limited, 2023 ACJ 346 has held that contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely on account of triple riding on a motor cycle or failure to wear a helmet; there must be evidence of a casual connection between the violation and the accident or its’s impact.

13. The point to examine is that if the deceased was wearing helmet, whether he could have survived the impact of the accident. Wearing a helmet could have only protected the head of the deceased not other parts of the body. If there were serious injuries on the chest, abdomen and other vital parts of the body of the deceased, then a helmet could not have saved the deceased from the impact of collision and in view of this, the Insurance Company cannot plead that non wearing of helmet by the deceased amounts to negligence on his part. The insurance company failed to prove that if the deceased was wearing helmet on the date of the accident then he would have certainly survived and no bodily harm would have been caused to him. Even otherwise, if the deceased was not wearing helmet, then it amounts to a contravention of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and for this small negligence, the Insurance Company cannot evade the statutory liability under the Act.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable 4 FAFO No. 2349 of 2025 to be dismissed at the admission stage.

15. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

16. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

17. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 9, 2025 Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

them died on the spot. An FIR was registered on 14.04.2022 at 11:31 hours at PS Nawabganj, District Fatehgarh against an unknown vehicle and during investigation, it came to light that Tata Sumo UP-84-T-3403 was involved in the accident and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the above Tata Sumo vehicle. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased, Ranjeet.

3. According to the claimants, Ranjeet use to sell vegetables on a thela. The claimants claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the above profession. The deceased was aged about 28 years on the date of the 2 FAFO No. 2349 of 2025 accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month, granted future prospects at the rate of 40%, taking multiplier of 17 and has accordingly granted compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% to the claimants, which have been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above Tata Sumo vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants. In the absence of the documentary proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal could have assessed the income only on the basis of minimum wages prevalent in the State of U.P., but the Tribunal has assessed the income beyond the minimum wages prescribed at the time of the accident, as such, the award of the Tribunal is erroneous.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment.

6. The impugned judgment records that the deceased used to sell vegetables and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 28 years. The Tribunal has taken his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month and has enhanced it keeping in view his future prospects, by 40%, as such, has determined his income to be Rs.14,000/- per month.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has annexed the notification of the State of U.P. regarding minimum wages payable to unskilled, semi skilled and skilled worker for the period 01.04.2022 till 30.09.2022, which mentions that an unskilled worker is entitled to get minimum wages of Rs.9,530/- per month, a semi skilled worker is entitled to get minimum wages of Rs.10,483/- per month and the skilled worker is entitled to get Rs.11,743/- per month as minimum wages in the State of U.P. for the above mentioned period.

8. According to Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998, 'if a deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of the accident, then he is entitled to get enhancement of his wages at the rate of 50%.'

9. It is apparent that in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 40%, which is erroneous, in the light of the above 3 FAFO No. 2349 of 2025 Rule 220-A. If the income of the deceased is assessed for unskilled worker at the rate of Rs.9,530/- per month and if 50% enhancement for future prospects is added, then it comes to Rs.14,295/- per month but in the instant case, the Tribunal has only awarded compensation taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month, which cannot be deemed erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. In view of this, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarding compensation, accordingly to the claimants.

11. Learned counsel also submitted that since the deceased was not wearing helmet on the date of the alleged accident, as such, it shall be presumed that there was some negligence on his part and, in this situation, the insurer should not have been ordered to indemnify the entire liability.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Anjana Narayan Kamle vs. Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Limited, 2023 ACJ 346 has held that contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely on account of triple riding on a motor cycle or failure to wear a helmet; there must be evidence of a casual connection between the violation and the accident or its’s impact.

13. The point to examine is that if the deceased was wearing helmet, whether he could have survived the impact of the accident. Wearing a helmet could have only protected the head of the deceased not other parts of the body. If there were serious injuries on the chest, abdomen and other vital parts of the body of the deceased, then a helmet could not have saved the deceased from the impact of collision and in view of this, the Insurance Company cannot plead that non wearing of helmet by the deceased amounts to negligence on his part. The insurance company failed to prove that if the deceased was wearing helmet on the date of the accident then he would have certainly survived and no bodily harm would have been caused to him. Even otherwise, if the deceased was not wearing helmet, then it amounts to a contravention of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and for this small negligence, the Insurance Company cannot evade the statutory liability under the Act.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable 4 FAFO No. 2349 of 2025 to be dismissed at the admission stage.

15. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

16. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

17. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 9, 2025 Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad