The Allahabad High Court has held that motor accident compensation can be enhanced even where the claimants have filed no cross-appeal, once the insurer has appealed against the quantum awarded, and has raised an award of Rs 7.20 lakh to Rs 11.43 lakh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a man killed in a road accident in Ambedkar Nagar from Rs 7,20,000 to Rs 11,43,565, holding that the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimants does not stop an appellate court from awarding just compensation when the insurance company has challenged the quantum [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Faizabad v. Reeta & 4 Ors.].
A single-judge Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar partly disposed of the insurer’s First Appeal From Order by recomputing the award on a higher notional income, and upheld the Tribunal‘s findings on negligence, licence and insurance.
Background
On November 16, 2017, Sabhajeet Tadmali was struck by a Scorpio near Bariyawan crossing in Ambedkar Nagar and died during treatment. His family claimed Rs 49,70,000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad, stating that he was 50 years old and a registered ‘tadi’ seller.
The driver and owner did not contest the claim. The Tribunal held that negligent driving was proved, the driver was licensed and the vehicle was insured. Taking a notional income of Rs 5,000 a month, it awarded Rs 7,20,000 with 7 per cent simple interest.
The insurer appealed on quantum, contending that the vehicle was stolen and that the deceased’s Aadhaar card showed his age as 51, which would change the multiplier. The claimants filed no appeal but orally contended before the High Court that the income assessed was meagre and that the conventional heads had not been escalated.
Enhancement without a cross-appeal
Relying on Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and on the Supreme Court‘s decisions in Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager and Surekha v. Santosh, Justice Kumar held that an appellate court has the power to pass the order that ought to have been passed, in favour of respondents who have not appealed. The judgment states:
“Once the issue of compensation is raised by any party before the Appellate Court, then the Appellate Court becomes duty bound to ascertain whether compensation has been adequately and justly awarded.”
The Court added that the absence of an appeal or cross-objection “cannot operate as a legal impediment to awarding just compensation in accordance with law.”
Theft plea, age and multiplier
The High Court rejected the insurer’s plea that the vehicle was stolen, as no FIR was lodged and there was no evidence on record. On age, it noted that the family register indicated a birth year of 1967, so that the deceased had completed 50 years on the date of the accident and fell in the 46-50 age bracket, attracting a multiplier of 13 under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. It declined to treat the Aadhaar card as conclusive proof of age, relying on Saroj v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co.
Notional income
Treating the deceased conservatively as an unskilled worker, the Court found Rs 5,000 a month inadequate and applied the minimum wage of Rs 7,400.46 a month notified by the Uttar Pradesh Labour Commissioner on January 4, 2018. Following Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, it observed that the minimum wage notification is a yardstick but not an absolute one, and that guesswork should not be totally detached from reality.
The recomputed award
| Head | Tribunal | High Court |
|---|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | Rs 6,50,000 | Rs 9,62,065 |
| Funeral expenses | Rs 15,000 | Rs 18,150 |
| Loss of estate | Rs 15,000 | Rs 18,150 |
| Loss of consortium | Rs 40,000 | Rs 1,45,200 (Rs 48,400 each to three claimants) |
| Total | Rs 7,20,000 | Rs 11,43,565 |
The loss of dependency was worked out on an annual income of Rs 88,806, with 25 per cent added for future prospects and one-third deducted for personal expenses. The conventional heads were escalated in line with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
Directions
The enhanced award of Rs 11,43,565 carries simple interest at 7 per cent per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is to adjust any amount already paid to the claimants against the enhanced sum, and the record is to be returned to it for implementation.
Why The Allahabad High Court Judgment Matters
The ruling confirms that a claimants’ failure to file a cross-appeal does not lock in a low award once the insurer has opened the question of quantum. The appellate court’s duty is to reach just compensation, not to hold the claimants to a technicality.
It also restates two practical points for claims where records are thin: where the exact age is uncertain, the completed age is taken, and an Aadhaar entry is not conclusive on age.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd., Faizabad v. Reeta & 4 Ors. [FAFO No. 102 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
Date of Judgment: September 23, 2026
Appearances: Inder Preet Singh Chadha for the appellant insurer; Mukesh Singh for the claimants