U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Vikas Nagar Thru. Regional Manager Kanpur v. Nirmala Devi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2025FAFO/227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by transport corporation against motor accident compensation award of Rs.14,60,884 with 7% interest in a death case. Appeal admitted; additional pension-card evidence sought under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to dispute the deceased's age and multiplier; award operation stayed on deposit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; operation of award stayed if appellant deposits entire sum with up-to-date interest within four weeks, 50% then released to claimants.

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Vikas Nagar Thru… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 227 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Vikas Nagar Thru. Regional Manager Kanpur Respondent :- Nirmala Devi And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Avdhesh Kumar Pandey,Shreshth Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shreshth Srivastava learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5.

¶6

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 19.03.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Unnao bearing claim petition no.129 of 2018 (old number), new number 363 of 2019 wherein a death case sum of Rs.14,60,884/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimant respondent nos.1 to 5.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was a retired government employee, however, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 53 years by the claimants. This was specifically denied by the appellant however, they do not have enough evidence to dispute that fact but nevertheless the appellant has been able to obtain pension card which indicates the age of the deceased which has been placed on record along with an application no.IA/3/2025 purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

¶8

It is urged that considering the actual age as per the pension papers the age of the deceased would have been 58 years at the time of the accident and this would materially impact the applicability of the multiplier and that is taken note of the amount awarded is on the higher side. It has further been urged that in the instant case, the FIR was lodged with delay about two months without mentioning bus number and is clearly creating a doubt over the occurrence and involvement of the bus of the appellant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the claimant respondent has urged that even otherwise the amount has been appropriately granted as consortium has not been given to the children of the deceased and if that is taken note of the amount awarded to the same of

¶10

be equalized.

¶11

It has further urged that there is nothing on record to indicate as to why the document which is now been relied upon by the appellant could not be placed before the tribunal.

¶12

Admit.

¶13

Matter requires consideration.

¶14

It will be open for the respondents including the claimant to file their objection on the application under Order 41 Rule 27. Since, the claimants are already represented hence no fresh notice is required.

¶15

Let notice be issued to respondent no.6 and the lower court record be summoned.

¶16

Steps to be taken within a week.

¶17

As an interim measure, it is provided that in case if the appellant deposits the entire sum within a period of four weeks from today with up to date interest, after adjusting the statutory deposits the operation of the award dated 19.03.2025 shall remain stayed. However, on deposit of the aforesaid sum, 50% of the deposit shall be released in favour of the claimant respondent which shall be kept in highest interest bearing account subject to the final outcome of the appeal.

¶18

List in the month of September, 2025.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Harshita

¶20

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Vikas Nagar Thru. Regional Manager Kanpur v. Nirmala Devi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Vikas Nagar Thru. Regional Manager Kanpur v. Nirmala Devi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kiran Gupta vs Smt. Meera Gupta

Smt. Santosh Kumari and 4 Others vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Dist. Sitapur and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Singh vs Gaon Sabha (Panchayat) Barai Para, Faizabad Thru. Gram Pradhan and 8 Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Its Manager vs Smt. Vasudha Pal and Another

Paras Nath vs Rakesh Kumar and 11 Others

Ms. Kamar Rizvi and Another vs Smt. Shabih Fatima and Others