[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Vandana Gour Alias Vandana Sharma on 13 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU

                                     MA No.501/2009
                                     c/w
                                     MA No.517/2009


                                    Reserved on: 30.01.2026
                                    Pronounced on: 13.02.2026
                                    Uploaded on: 13.02.2026

MA No.501/2009
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office No.1, Town Hall Building, Jammu
Through its Sr. Divisional Manager, Dr. R.K.Dupper, Age 48 years
                                                  ....Appellant(s)



                       Through:- Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate
Versus


1.    Vandana Gour alias Vandana Sharma
      Wd/o Anil Sharma

2.    Master Parth Sharma (Minor) through
      Mother (respondent No.1).

3.    Smt. Kamla Sharma W/o Sh. Ved Parkash

4.    Ved Parkash Sharma S/o Late Ram Dass
      All residents of Quarter No.158, Sarwal Colony, Jammu.

5.    Madan Lal S/o Sardari Lal Gupta
      R/o H.No.391, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

6.    Kulvinder Singh S/o Santokh Singh
      R/o Sarore Adda, Samba
7.    Sukhvinder Singh @ Buntoo S/o Dhian Singh
      Caste Labana Sikh r/o Sunjwan, Vijaypur,
      Tehsil and District Samba
                                                    ...Respondent(s)

8.    The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
      B.O. College Road, Kathua Through I/C
 MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009                   2




        Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK08-7129).

                   Through:- Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate for R-1 to 4

MA No.517/2009

1.      Vandana Gour alias Vandana Sharma, age 33 years
        Widow of Late Sh. Anil Sharma

2.      Master Parth Sharma, age 09 years (Minor son) of Late Sh. Anil
        Sharma through petitioner No.1 natural mother/guardian.

3.      Smt. Kamla Sharma age 54 years W/o Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma

4.      Ved Parkash Sharma age 61 years S/o Late Sh. Ram Dass
        All residents of Quarter No.158, Sarwal Colony, Jammu.
                                                    ....Appellant(s)
        Versus

1.      The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
        B.O. Canal Road, Jammu through its I/C Branch Manager
        (Insurer of Bus No.JK02X-1731)

2.      Madan Lal S/o Sardari Lal Gupta
        R/o H.No.391, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
        (Owner of the Bus No.JK02X-1731)

3.      Kulvinder Singh S/o Santokh Singh
        R/o Sarore Adda, Samba District samba
        (Owner of Bus No.JK02X-1731)

4.      Sukhvinder Singh @ Buntoo S/o Dhian Singh
        Caste Labana Sikh r/o Sunjwan, Vijaypur,
        Tehsil and District Samba (Driver of the Bus NO.JK02X-1731)

5.      The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
        B.O. College Road, Kathua Through its I/C
        Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK08-7129)

6.      Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh R/o Village Billawar,
        Tehsil Billawar District Kathua
        (Owner of the Bus No.JK02-7129)
7.      Nardev Singh S/o Sh. Isher Singh R/o village Tilla,
        Tehsil Billawar District Kathua
        (Driver of the Bus No.JK08-71209
                                                    ...Respondent(s)

                   Through:- Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate for R-1
 MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009                3




Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                               JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the award dated 13th August, 2009

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ["the

Tribunal"] in file No.706/Claim titled Vandna Gour alias

Vandana Sharma and others v. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.8,12,376/- minus the interim compensation,

if any received by respondent Nos.1 to 4, along with interest @

7.5% per annum and the appellant-Insurance Company along

with respondent No.8 -New India Assurance Company have been

directed to satisfy the award. The Oriental Insurance Company

alone has chosen to file appeal whereas respondent No.8-New

India Assurance Company has accepted the award.

2. The is an appeal by the claimants-Vandna Gour and others

seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,

in terms of the impugned award dated 13.08.2009 passed in file

No.706/Claim titled Vandna Gour alias Vandna Sharma v.

Oriental Insurance Limited and others.

3. Having regard to the fact that both these appeals arise out of an

award dated 13th August, 2009, passed in claim petition titled

Vandna Gour and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and

others, as such, are taken up for consideration and disposal

together.

Factual Matrix

4. On 01.11.2007, at about 9 am the deceased Anil Kumar, husband

of respondent No.1, father of respondent No.2 and son of

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Claimant) along with few others was

travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.JK02M-0615

from Jammu to Dharmshalla. The deceased along with others

met with an accident near Berero Khad near Barian Camp

Supwal Tehsil and District Samba, when it was crushed between

two offending busses bearing Registration Nos.JK02X-1731 and

JK028-7129, which were coming from opposite direction in high

speed driven by their drivers in rash and negligent manner. Anil

Kumar- who was Husband of respondent No.1, father of

respondent No.2 and son of respondent Nos.3 and 4, died on

spot.

5. With a view to claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 ["the Act"], respondent No.1 to 4 filed a claim petition

before the Tribunal seeking a total compensation of Rs.53 lakh

along with interest @ 12% p.a. The claim petition was inter alia

contested by the appellant-Insurance Company. On the basis of

the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in all

the claim petitions arising out of the accident, including the claim

petition under consideration:

"1. Whether an accident occurred on 1.-11-2007 at Barero Khad near Baria Camp Supwal Tehsil and District Samba by involvement of two vehicles No.JK08 7129 and No.JK02X 1731 being driven in the hands of respective drivers in which deceased namely Anil Sharma, Neelam Gupta, N.D.Gupta and Sushil Gupta received fatal injuries? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners in each case are entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether drivers of both vehicles at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicles in contravention of terms and conditions of policy of insurance, RC, route permit and fitness? OPR 1 and 5

4. Whether accident has occurred by the contributory negligence by the drivers of both vehicles, if so how and what is its effect? OPR 1 & 5

5. Whether claim petition are bad for misjoinder of parties, if so how? OPR 5

6. Whether on the date of accident vehicle No.JK02X 1731 had been transferred by the erstwhile owner, if so how and what it its effect? OPR 1

7. Relief. O.P. Parties."

6. With a view to discharge the burden of proof, the respondent

No.1- one of the complainants examined herself and PW-Baljeet

Singh, an employee of the Forest Protection Force. On the basis

of the evidence that was led by the parties including respondent

No.1 herein, issue No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been decided in

favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Companies.

7. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, which pertains to the

entitlement of the respondent-claimants to compensation, the

Tribunal having considered the statements of claimant-Vandna

Gour and PW-Baljeet Singh, came to the conclusion that the

monthly salary of the deceased-Anil Kumar was Rs.6985/-per

month. Deducting 1/3rd on account of personal expenses and

applying the multiplier of 14, the tribunal computed the

compensation. The respondents-claimants were held entitled to

Rs.8,12,376/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing of the claim petition till liquidation.

8. Insofar as the appeal of the Insurance Company is concerned, I

do not find any substantial ground urged to find fault with the

impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel appearing for

the Insurance-Company, that the Tribunal did not appreciate that

the respondent No.1 was entitled to draw full salary for a period

of seven years and has awarded the compensation without

deducting the amount, the claimant would get during these seven

years. He, however, does not dispute the amount of

compensation granted on other aspects.

10. Per contra, Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-claimant, who has also filed a separate appeal would

seek enhancement of compensation on the ground that the

Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd on account personal expenses,

whereas it should have been 1/4th in view of the number of

dependants. It is also the case of the respondent-claimant that

while computing compensation payable to him, the Tribunal did

not apply the correct multiplier, which, in the instant case, was

15 keeping in view the age of the deceased as 36 years. The

enhancement of compensation is also sought on the ground that

having regard to the age of the deceased, there ought to have

been increase in the income of the deceased on account of future

prospects, which in the instant case would be 50% of the annual

income.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material

on record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal of the

Insurance Company, which is devoid of any merit, deserves to be

dismissed. The only plea taken by Mr. Amrit Sarin, leaned

counsel for the Insurance Company, to assail the award is that,

the amount which the wife of the deceased has received on the

account full salary for seven years ought to have been deducted

while computing compensation. The plea taken is without

substance and cannot be accepted, for, the family of the deceased

would also be entitled to the monetary benefits, which they have

received from the Government on account of the death of the

deceased, had he died a natural death.

12. Seven years salary, pension, PF, insurance and gratuity etc

cannot be treated as "pecuniary advantage" arising out of

accident and, therefore, cannot be deducted. Such bnefits, as

observed above, are unrelated to the accidents. [ see Vimal

Kumar and others v. Kishore Devi and others, (2013) 7 SCC

476 and Helen Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC

90]. This legal position is reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the recent judgment of Hanumantharaju v. Akram Pasha,

2025 INSC 682.

13. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Sarin in case of Krishna and

others v. Tek Chand and others, 2024 ACJ 443 is

distinguishable on facts. In the aforesaid case Hon'ble Supreme

Court was not considering statutory payments received by the

dependents of the deceased employee but a payment received on

account of death of an employee as a result of road accident.

14. We, however, find substance in the submissions of Mr. Mehta,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant, that the

Tribunal has failed make any addition on account of future

prospects. The Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/3rd ,

whereas it should have been 1/4th keeping in view the number of

dependents. The Tribunal has also erred in applying the

multiplier of 14 instead of 15. Amount granted on account of

consortium is also required to be modified in terms of the

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and

others.

15. For all these reasons, I hold the respondent-claimant entitled to

following amount of compensation:-

i) Taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6985/-, making an addition of 50% in terms of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, monthly income comes to (6985+ 3492.50)= Rs.10.447.50. Deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, monthly loss of income would be Rs.7,858/-.

Thus, the annual loss of income comes to 7858 x 12= Rs.94296/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corp. and anr (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of income comes to (94296 x 15) =Rs.14,14,440/-.

Under conventional heads, the claimant shall be entitled to

i) Funeral expenses : 15,000

ii) Loss of consortium to widow and son@ 40,000 each : Rs.80,000/-

iii) Loss of estate to parents: Rs.15,000/-

Total : Rs.15,24,440/-

The aforesaid amount minus the amount already received

shall become payable to the respondent NO.1-claimant with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till its realization. Rest of the terms of the impugned

award shall remain intact. The Insurance Company shall satisfy

the modified award and deposit the balance amount before the

Registry of this Court. The Registry shall release the amount in