[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neelam Jain vs Pawan Sharma on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
1 MA-4679-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4679 of 2023
SMT. NEELAM JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
PAWAN SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance
Ms. Shikha Baghel - counsel for the appellants.
Ms.Anjali Banerjee Senior Advocate with Ms. Shail Patel-
counsel for the respondent no.3
Heard on : 02/02/2026
Pronounced on : 24/02/2026
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 against the judgment/award dated 26/04/2023 passed by 4th
Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in claim case
no.2414/2020 only on the quantum of compensation.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that on 30/07/2020
at about 7:00 p.m., deceased Jinendra Kumar was returning to his home in
Jabalpur from his village Lamheta on his Activa scooter. When he reached
Manegaon, a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP20MA9379 came from
the opposite direction. The rider of the said motorcycle, while driving at a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Activa
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
2 MA-4679-2023
of the deceased. Due to the impact, he sustained injuries on his head, chest,
hands and legs and was bleeding profusely. Deepak Patel and other persons
present at the spot took him to Medical College, Jabalpur, in a 108
Ambulance, where he was admitted for treatment. However, he subsequently
succumbed to his injuries.Information regarding the death was
communicated by the hospital to the concerned police station. Consequently,
Crime No. 239/2020 was registered at Police Station Belkheda, District
Jabalpur, under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC against Respondent
No. 1.
3. The learned Tribunal, vide award dated 26/04/2023, allowed the
claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per
month.
4. Against the said award, the present appeal has been preferred on
the ground that the deceased was an ex-employee of the Vehicle Factory and
had retired in the year 2014. At the time of the incident, he was receiving a
monthly pension of Rs. 26,430/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a
pensioner. He had served as a Examiner, Highly Skilled in the Vehicle
Factory, Jabalpur and retired in the year 2014 upon attaining the age of
superannuation. At the time of the incident, he was receiving a monthly
pension of Rs. 26,430/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
3 MA-4679-2023
compensation of Rs. 70,00,000/- He submits that the Tribunal committed an
illegality in not considering the deceased's monthly pension while assessing
the amount of compensation. It is further argued that pension is a recurring
and assured source of income arising from the past services of the deceased.
Therefore, while determining the loss of dependency and calculating the
compensation, such amount cannot be excluded or deducted, as it constitutes
a legitimate and continuing component of the deceased's income. It is
contended that the pension was the sole source of livelihood for the deceased
and his family members. In support of said contention the appellant relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Kirosata Devi
and others Vs. Ramji Lal and others (SLP No.25497/2025), Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Shashi Sharma and others, reported in (2016) 9
SCC 627, Hanumantharaju B (Dead) By LR. Vs. M.Akram Pasha &
another(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 2841-2842 of 2021.
6. Respondents No. 1 and 2, by filing a joint written statement,
submitted that respondent No. 1 is the driver and respondent No. 2 is the
owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-20-ME-9379. It
is contended that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence and
the vehicle was duly insured. They have also admitted that the incident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle.
7. Counsel for respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company filed a
detailed written statement opposing the claim petition and prayed for its
dismissal on the grounds that the offending vehicle was not duly insured and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
4 MA-4679-2023
that respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid driving license to drive the said
vehicle at the relevant time. It id further contended that the FIR was lodged
belatedly without any satisfactory explanation for the delay and, therefore, in
such circumstances, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has also
contended that pension is the fruit of the services rendered by a person during
his tenure of employment. The fundamental principle governing the award of
compensation is to assess the actual loss caused to the family of the
deceased. It is submitted that, after the death of the deceased, the appellants
are receiving family pension in accordance with law; therefore, there is no
loss of income. Hence, the pension cannot be treated as income for the
purpose of determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. In support of his contention counsel for the respondent relied on
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (MRS) and
others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another ,
reported in (1999)1 SCC 90 and Sebastiani Lakra and ors Vs. National
Insurance company and another reported in AIR 2018 SC 5034.
10. In order to prove and establish their case, the appellants
examined PW-1 Smt. Neelam Jain (appellant No. 1 herself), PW-2 Hitendra
Gotia, and PW-3 Dipak Patel (an eyewitness), and also produced
documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-41.
11. Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as the Insurance Company did
not choose to examine any witnesses in support of their defence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
5 MA-4679-2023
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. The question now arises for consideration is whether the learned
Tribunal committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in assessing and
calculating the compensation without taking into account the monthly
pension received by the deceased at the time of the incident.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (MRS)
and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
another (supra) has held that it is the general principal of estimating damages
under the common law is concenred, the pecuniary loss can be ascertained
only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future
pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the death with the
"pecuniary advantage" which from whatever source comes to him by reason
of the death. In other words, it is the balancing of loss and gain of the
claimant occasioned by the death.
The relevant paragraphs 32 and 33 are reproduced as under:-
"32 So far as the general principle of estimating damages under the
common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be
ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of
the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the
death with the 'pecuniary advantage which from whatever source
comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is the balancing
of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to
change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to
be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
6 MA-4679-2023
delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental
injury or death, not on account of any other death. Thus, the pecuniary
advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, co-relating
with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by
accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is
natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death
by accident., through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle.
would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus. the
application of general principle under the common law of loss and gain
for the computation of compensation under this Act must co-relate to
this type of injury or deaths, viz, accidental. If the words "pecuniary
advantage' from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any
form of death under this Act it would dilute all possible benefits
conferred on the claimant and would be contrary of the spirit of the
law. If the 'pecuniary advantage' resulting from death means pecuniary
advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all the
assets movable, immovable, shares, bank accounts, case and every
amount receivable under any contract. In other words, all heritable
assets including what is willed by the deceased etc. This would
obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the
claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the legislature. By such
an interpretation the tortfeasor in spite of his wrongful act or
negligence, which contributes to the death, would have in many cases
no liability or meagre liability. In our considered opinion, the general
principle of loss and gain takes colour of this statute, viz., the gain has
to be interpreted which is as a result of the accidental death and the loss
on account of the accident death. Thus, under the present Act whatever
pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever
source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of
the accidental death and not other form of death. The constitution of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal itself under Section 110 is, as the
Section states;
"....for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in
respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, ....."
33.Thus, it would not include that which claimant receives on account
other form of deaths, which he would have received even apart from
accidental death. Thus, such. pecuniary advantage would have no
correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is
computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
7 MA-4679-2023
the accidental death but that would have come to the claimant even
otherwise, could not be construed to be the "pecuniary advantage",
liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his
employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any
amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such
incidence may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our
legislature has taken not of such contingency, through the proviso of
Section 95. Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of
injury or death, arising out of, in the course of employment of an
employee."
15. The law laid down by Supreme Court in Hanumantharaju B
(Dead) by LR Vs. A.Akram Pasha and another (supra) was subsequently
followed by three benches judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance General
Insurance Company limited Vs. Shashi Sharma and others(supra) and the
High Court of Madras in the case of S.Vijaya and another Vs.
K.Karthikeyan and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 2087.
Para 19 of Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR(supra) is relevant. The
same is reproduced as under:-
"19. It is also now well settled that the amount of compensation is to
be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary of the injured/deceased
in respect of salaried persons and pension and such retirement benefits
enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income, these being
statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal heirs
irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal injuries etc.
and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable to the motor
accident.
Hence, pensionary benefit could not have been treated as "pecuniary
advantage" liable to be deducted for the purpose of computation of
compensation within the scope of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For this
proposition of law, we may refer to the decision in Vimal Kanwar &
Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein this Court, by
referring to the earlier decision in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90, held as follows:-
"19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in
Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90: 1999 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
8 MA-4679-2023
(Cri) 197]. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund,
pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed
deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on
account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of
accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of
the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable
for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this
Court: (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35)
"35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which
is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee
during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled
to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount
is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor
Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of
the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly,
family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his
family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the
service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death.
The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental
death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy
is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account
of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the
form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till
maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer
indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract
for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant
not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's
death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to
receive the amount.
Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though
are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of
one's death but all these have no corelation with the amount receivable
under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How
could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles
Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When
we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and
same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which
there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (the deceased)
contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which
has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the
tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident.
As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is
on account of the injury or death without making any contribution
towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through
contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
9 MA-4679-2023
without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable
under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable
under the life insurance policy is contractual.
"What flows from Hanumantharaju B(supra) is that pension being a
recurring and assured source of income arising from the past service of
the deceased constitutes an integral part of his pecuniary benefits.
Hence, while determining the loss of dependency, the pension amount
cannot be excluded or deducted, as it forms a legitimate and continuing
component of the income which the dependents would have otherwise
received, and hence the pension amount as receivable at the time of the
accident, by the deceased has to be considered while calculating the
loss of income and hence in the present case as the deceased was
receiving a pension of Rs.5,839/-per month, and accordingly the same
has to be added to the salary as received by the deceased from his
private job. As far as the income from the private service is concerned,
the Courts below have made certain unwarranted deductions in
calculating the income. We therefore fix the income of the deceased
from his private service at Rs.32,673/-per month, and as a result, the
total monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.38,512/- for the
computation of compensation. The claimant-appellant(s) are also
entitled to compensation under other heads in accordance with the
settled principles of law."
16. The law laid down in Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR Vs.
A.Akram Pasha and another(supra) is subsequently followed by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in Kirosata Devi & others Vs. Ramji Lal and others(supra).
Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is relevant which is reproduced as under:-
10. "What flows from Hanumantharaju B(supra) is that pension being a
recurring and assured source of income arising from the past service of
the deceased constitutes an integral part of his pecuniary benefits.
Hence, while determining the loss of dependency, the pension amount
cannot be excluded or deducted, as it forms a legitimate and continuing
component of the income which the dependents would have otherwise
received, and hence the pension amount as receivable at the time of the
accident, by the deceased has to be considered while calculating the
loss of income and hence in the present case as the deceased was
receiving a pension of Rs.5,839/-per month, and accordingly the same
has to be added to the salary as received by the deceased from his
private job. As far as the income from the private service is concerned,
the Courts below have made certain unwarranted deductions in
calculating the income. We therefore fix the income of the deceased
from his private service at Rs.32,673/-per month, and as a result, the
total monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.38,512/- for the
computation of compensation. The claimant-appellant(s) are also
entitled to compensation under other heads in accordance with the
settled principles of law"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
10 MA-4679-2023
17. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR Vs. A.Akram Pasha and another(supra) , I
have no hesitation in holding that the learned MACT committed an illegality
in assessing and calculating the compensation without taking into
consideration the pension of the deceased as income and in instead assuming
his notional income at Rs. 7,000/- per month.
18. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is
modified to the aforesaid extent. The monthly pension received by the
deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 26,430/-, which shall be treated as
his monthly income. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased comes
to Rs. 3,17,160/-.
19. At the time of the incident, the deceased was receiving a monthly
pension of Rs. 26,430/-. It is to be assumed that one-third of the said
amount was spent by the deceased towards his personal expenses;
accordingly, a deduction of one-fourth is required to be made.
20. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.
26,430/- and the annual income comes to Rs. 3,17,160/-, which shall be
treated as his income for the purpose of computation.
21. The comparitive chart in respect of compensation awarded by
MACT and compensation assessed by this Court is as under:-
Sr.No. Head Assessed by Assessed by this
MACT Court
1 Income (monthly) Rs.7,000/- Rs.26,430/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576
1 Income (monthly) 11 Rs.7,000/- MA-4679-2023
Rs.26,430/-
2. Annual income Rs.84,000/- Rs.3,17,160/-
3. Deduction (1/3 rd) Rs.28,000/- Rs.1,05,720/-
4. Annual income after Rs.56,000/- Rs.2,11,440/-
deduction
6. Total amount of Rs.2,80,000/- Rs.10,57,200/-
compensation
7. Amount awarded in other Rs.70,000/- 70,000/-
head as per the law laid
down by the Apex
Court in National
Insurance Company
Vs. Pranay Shethi,
reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680
Total compensation Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs.11,27,200/-
Total enhancement Rs.7,77,200/-
22. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the
aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.7,77,200/- within a period
of two months from the date of this order. The Insurance Company shall also
be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid enhanced amount at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization.
23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants stands allowed
and disposed of.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-
