[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Payal vs B.R.Goyal Infrastructure Private ... on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5339
1 MA-2896-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2896 of 2022
SMT. PAYAL AND OTHERS
Versus
B.R.GOYAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivam Soni on behalf of Shri Divik Mukati, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mehra on behalf of Shri Akshansh Mehra, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 3.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 21.02.2022 passed in Claim Case No. 3762/2018 whereby an amount of
Rs.28,36,920/- has been awarded to the survivors of the deceased Gourav Kumar,
who passed away in road traffic accident which occurred on 30.10.2018 involving
the offending vehicle Truck No. MP-09-KC-8820.
02. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that income of the deceased
has not been properly assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. He was permanent
employee as Manager in Aviva Insurance Company Ltd. and was getting salary of
Rs.37,250/-. In this regard, pay slips Ex.P/13 to P/18 has been filed to show the
income. However, despite being evidence available on record, allowances and P.F.
has been deducted thereby income only Rs.14,844/- has been considered for
computing the award by the learned Claims Tribunal amount which is not proper.
Hence, he prays for considering the income of the deceased as Rs.37,250/- and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5339
2 MA-2896-2022
accordingly computing the just and proper compensation. Learned Claims
Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the allowance from the salary which
is not permissible as held by the Apex Court in the case of Manorma Sinha vs. The
Divisional Manager Oriental [Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 19878/2022, decided
on 15.10.2025]. Relevant para - 12 reads as under:-
"Now, the next question is whether allowances are to be
added to the salary for determining the multiplicand. In
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors., it
was held that "the term income has different connotations for
different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the
change in societal conditions consider the question not only
having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the
end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to
the members of the entire family". In Vijay Kumar Rastogi v.
Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation a three-
Judge Bench of this court noticing earlier decisions on the
point observed that "the income should include those
benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are
taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of
income tax or professional tax, although some elements
thereof may not be taxable due to exemption conferred
thereupon under the statute." Following the decision in Vijay
Kumar Rastogi (supra) in National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Nalini & Ors.8 it was held by this Court that the
emoluments and the benefits accruing to the deceased under
various heads for the purposes of computation of loss of
income, ought to be included irrespective of whether they
are taxable or not. Thus, in our view, the High Court erred in
excluding the allowances from the computation to arrive at
the multiplicand. Hence, the total monthly income was
rightly computed by the Tribunal at Rs.53,367."
03. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has
opposed the prayer on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has considered the
income in right perspective and in all the other heads also, the amount has been
properly added to arrive at just and proper compensation, hence prays for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5339
3 MA-2896-2022
dismissal of the appeal.
Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
04. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that deceased Gourav Kumar
was 37 years old, employed with Aviva Insurance Company Ltd. and was earning
net income Rs.37,250/- after deduction of income tax and professional tax,
therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has failed to either in not taking the aforesaid
income as Rs.37,250/- per month as it was established by way of oral and
documentary evidence. The aforesaid income will be taken into consideration
while computing just and proper compensation. Amount of Rs.2500/- in
Professional tax and amount of Rs.9725/- in the head of income tax yearly will be
deducted. Since deceased was in permanent job and he was below 40 years of age,
therefore, 50% will be added in the head of future prospects. Looking to the
number of survivors i.e. three, 1/3rd will be deducted in the head of personal
expenses. Rs.44,000/- will be given to each of the claimant as consortium amount
and Rs.16,500/- each in the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be
added. Accordingly, the just and proper compensation comes as under:-
Rs.37,250/- p.m. x 12 = Rs.4,47,000/- - Rs.2500/- (P.T.) =
Rs.4,44,500/- - Rs.9725/- (I.T.) = Rs.4,34,775/- +
Loss of
Rs.2,17,387/- (50% F.P.) = Rs.6,52,162/- - Rs.2,17,387/-
Dependency
(1/3rd personal expenses) = Rs.4,34,775/- x 15 (M.P.) =
Rs.65,21,625/-
Consortium Rs.44,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/-
Funeral
Rs.16,500/-
Expenses
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
Total: Rs.66,86,625/-
MACT
Rs.28,36,920/-
Award:
Enhanced
Rs.38,49,705/-
Amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5339
4 MA-2896-2022
05. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case
is Rs.66,86,625/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.28,36,920/-.
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.38,49,705/-
over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal.
06. The appeal is valued as Rs.2,00,000/- and for the rest of the amount the
claimants will pay the requisite Court fees within a period of 30 days from today
and only thereafter enhanced amount will be disbursed. It is made clear, in case
the court fees is not paid within the stipulated period, the appellants will not be
entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period.
07. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein
above. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award including rate of
interest shall remain intact.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
