S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt Archana And 6 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12929 ALL

Allahabad High Court

S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt Archana And 6 Others on 24 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209479
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2681 of 2025   
 
   S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd.    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Smt Archana And 6 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Aditya Singh Parihar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Krishna Mohan Rai   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 38
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.     

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by insurer of the offending car No.UP-85AQ-6485 against the impugned judgment and award dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura in M.A.C.P. No.773 of 2017 (Smt. Archna & others vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), whereby for the untimely death of Sitaram Sheoran, in a motor accident that occurred on 31.10.2017, a compensation of Rs.76,77,632/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(wife,children and parents), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending car No.UP-85AQ-6485.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that according to the testimony of eye witness PW-2 Sachin Kumar, the offending vehicle was being driven at a speed of 50-60 kmph, which was improbable because the accident occurred on the side road when the offending vehicle was descending from the expressway. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no rash and negligent driving by the offending driver, as such, the conclusion of the tribunal is perverse on that account. He further submitted that the deceased was a para military personnel, working in CRPF at the time of the accident and was getting transport allowance of Rs.1890/- per month, hair cutting allowance of Rs.45/- and soap allowance of Rs.45/- per month which could not have been considered while awarding compensation to the claimants, but the tribunal has held otherwise. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants which warrants interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. With these submission, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submitted that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident which was proved from the testimony of eye witness PW-2 Sachin Kumar. He further submitted that except income tax paid by the deceased, all the allowance paid to the deceased during employment, are to be considered as part of the salary while awarding compensation to the claimants and the tribunal has not committed any illegality on that account. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed at the admission stage.

4. I have heard learned counsel of the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with the appeal.

5. The claimants have examined the widow of the deceased Smt. Archana as PW-1, Sachin Kumar as PW-2 and Rajendra Singh as PW-3 whereas the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle have not examined any witness.

6. PW-1 Smt. Archana has very fairly accepted that she was not an eye witness of the accident. PW-2 Sachin Kumar deposed that in the evening on 31.10.2017 he alongwith Jitendra and Sitaram Sheoran (deceased) were going to village Marodgadhi to their relatives home and when they reached near Tappal on a cut of Yamuna Expressway and were walking after descending from the expressway on the service road towards village Marodgadhi, then at about 04.30 PM the offending car No.UP-85-AQ-6485 came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which hit the deceased from behind and thereafter fled from the spot. The deceased was taken in a serious conditions to Kailash Hospital, Jewar where the doctors declared him dead. This witness specifically deposed that the accident occurred in his presence. During cross-examination, this witness deposed that the offending car was being driven at a speed of 50-60 kmph approximately, but, on that basis it cannot be presumed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car No.UP-85AQ-6485.

7. It is apparent that the owner/driver of the offending vehicle have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim and even the insurer of the offending vehicle has not led any independent evidence to prove that there was no rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further after investigation, a charge sheet in the criminal case has been submitted against the offending driver Lokman in Case Crime No.489 of 2017 P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 IPC, which has not been challenged before any competent criminal court and on which cognizance by the criminal court has been taken.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another 2025 SCC OnLine Sc 497, has held as under:-

"4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver." (emphasis supplied)

9. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in concluding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle No. UP-85-AQ-6485 and on that ground fastening the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company.

10. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs Indira Srivastava & Ors (2008) 2 SCC 763 has held that the amount paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit and from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. It was further held that net income would ordinarily mean gross income minus the statutory deductions.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma & Ors vs Karam Singh & Ors (2010) 12 SCC 378 and Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 13 SCC 22 (By 3 Judges) has held that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.

12. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that all the allowances being paid to the deceased by his employer should be considered while assessing the compensation in a claim case and only the amount deducted towards income tax and surcharge should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.

13. In view of the above law, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that transport allowance of Rs.1890/- per month, hair cutting allowance of Rs.45/- and soap allowance of Rs.45/- per month being paid to the deceased should not be considered as part of the gross salary is liable to be rejected. It is very much apparent that if this amount would not have been paid to the deceased, then he certainly would have spent that amount from his pocket which would have made the net salary available to the family lesser and, as such, there is no logic in ignoring the above allowances while assessing the gross salary of the deceased.

14. It is also apparent that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.34,011/- per month, which was proved by PW-3 Rajendra Singh, from which the tribunal has ignored Rs.54/- being the arrears of transport allowance, Rs.45/- as hair cutting allowance and Rs.45/- as soap allowance, a total of Rs.144/-, as such, the net salary of Rs. 34,011-144=Rs.33,867/- per month should have been considered for assessing the compensation, but the tribunal has made an erroneous calculation and has assessed income of Rs.33,063/- per month in para 31 of the judgment. The tribunal should have considered the income of the deceased at least at Rs.33,867/- per month, prior to the deduction of income tax. The tribunal has also not awarded interest on the compensation paid towards future prospects of the deceased, which is erroneous. It is apparent that the tribunal has already committed error in awarding less compensation to the claimants, which cannot be reduced any further.

15. No other issue was pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts, the compensation awarded to the claimants cannot be reduced, as such, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

18. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

November 24, 2025

Himanshu