Disposed¶15

Arti Tripathi and Others v. Zafar Alam and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026FAFO/204/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAFO No. 204 of 2026; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 20; Prashant Kumar, J.; order dated February 26, 2026; appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; impugned judgment dated 19.11.2025 and award dated 28.11.2025 of MACT Sultanpur in M.A.C.P. No.418/2022; compensation Rs.23,37,576/- with interest; challenge to notional income and treatment of salary deductions in computing compensation; Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, 2013(3) TAC 6 (SC); appeal admitted; notice to unserved respondents; Tribunal record summoned; listing July, 2026; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; notice to be issued to the unserved respondents; record of the Tribunal summoned; appellants to take steps for service of notice within seven working days; matter listed for July, 2026. No merits decided at this stage.

Arti Tripathi and Others vs Zafar Alam and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 204 of 2026

¶3

Arti Tripathi And Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Zafar Alam And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Manjeet Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Zafar Aziz

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 19.11.2025 and award dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in M.A.C.P. No.418/2022 (Arti Tripathi and others vs. Zafar Alam and others), whereby compensation of Rs.23,37,576/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not correct. He further submits that the entire salary was not being considered while computing the compensation and the deductions made in the salary was treated to be as final income. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. reported in [2013(3) TAC 6 (SC)].

¶14