[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Meenakshi And Others on 31 January, 2026
FAO No.1274 of 2025(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(133) FAO No.1274 of 2025(O&M)
Reserved on:29.01.2026
Pronounced on: 31.01.2026
Uploaded on : 31.01.2026
The United India Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi and Others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Ms. Anil Mehra, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the Respondents/claimants.
*****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the
award dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hisar , whereby the claim petition filed by the Respondents/Claimants for grant
of compensation on account of death of Bajrang Sharma was allowed. Award
amount of Rs. 52,20,000/- along with interest at rate of 7% per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition till actual realisation.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The claimants' case is that on 21.09.2021, Bajrang Sharma was travelling
as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by his nephew Pardeep. At about 9:30
a.m., near the South bypass road close to Jindal Factory overbridge, offending
truck bearing No. HR-39B/4225, driven rashly and negligently, struck the
motorcycle, resulting in Bajrang's death. On Pardeep's statement, FIR No. 839
dated 21.09.2021 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427 IPC was registered at
P.S. Sadar, Hisar. After investigation, the police found respondent No.1
Manjeet negligent and filed a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It was
asserted that the deceased was working as a Sales Manager with Edisafe
Logistics Pvt. Ltd., earning ₹30,000 per month, and his widow and two minor
children filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
3. Respondents No.4 and 5 (Driver and Owner respectively) in their written
statement, denied the occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving,
and involvement of the truck. They disclaimed liability and pleaded that, if
compensation was held payable, the same should be borne by respondent No.3,
the insurer, as the vehicle was insured. They sought dismissal of the claim
petition. Appellant-Insurance Company also contested the claim, raising
objections regarding locus standi, maintainability and alleged collusion. It
denied the accident, as well as the age and income of the deceased, alleging that
a false FIR was registered in collusion to extract money. It further pleaded
violation of policy terms and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by
respondent no.1-Manjit Singh. While determining the quantum of
compensation, the learned Tribunal assessed Monthly Income as 30,000/-
relying upon his last salary slips (Ex.P-38 to Ex.P-43) and testimony of PW7.
Thereafter, learned Tribunal applied the structured formula as per the settled
principles of law. Consequently, awarded a total compensation of only
₹52,20,000/- with interest at rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petition till actual realisation.. Aggrieved by the said award, the present
appeal has been filed by appellant/insurance company for modification of the
impugned award.
CONTENTIONS
5. The Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal
committed a grave error in allowing the claim petition by assessing the
deceased's income at ₹30,000 per month on the premise that he was working as
a Sales Manager. It is argued that while computing monthly income, the
Tribunal failed to appreciate that allowances personal to the deceased could not
be included. Consequently, inclusion of transport allowance and special
allowance in the income assessment was erroneous. Learned counsel placed
reliance on The New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Shri Lal & Others,
2023(1) TAC 734, wherein it was held that transport and travelling allowances
are liable to be excluded from the total salary. On this basis, the appellant
submits that the award deserves modification and the income of the deceased
ought to have been assessed at ₹24,610 per month instead of ₹30,000. It is
further urged that the settled position of law excludes conveyance and special
allowances, being personal in nature, from the computation of income. The
appellant asserts that the Tribunal erred in considering these allowances, and
placed reliance on the appointment letter of the deceased with Inland World
Logistics Private Limited, annexed as Annexure A-1, in support of its
contention.
6. Furthermore, The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the
Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the contributory negligence of the
deceased. It is contended that due to lack of due care on the part of the
deceased, he substantially contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
Accordingly, at least 50% negligence ought to have been attributed to the
deceased, and liability to that extent should have been borne by the claimant
himself.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Claimants argued that the appellant's
objection to the assessment of income is wholly misconceived and founded on a
distorted reading of the record. The deceased was last employed with Edisafe
Logistics Private Limited, where he was paid a consolidated stipend of ₹30,000
per month, as duly proved by PW7 and through the offer letter (Ex.P37) and
salary slips Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. These documents clearly establish that the
amount of ₹30,000 was a fixed stipend and did not carry any component of
travelling, conveyance or special allowance. The appellants are deliberately
relying upon the salary structure (Annexure A-1) of the deceased's earlier
employment with Inland World Logistics Private Limited, where travel
allowance was granted, to seek deductions. Such an approach is factually
incorrect and reflects an attempt to mislead the Court by mixing two distinct
and unrelated employments.
8. That the evidence on record further demonstrates that the deceased had a
consistent earning profile as a Sales Manager over several years. Even the ITR
for A.Y. 2020-2021 (Ex.P7) reflects an annual income broadly consistent with
a monthly earning of around ₹30,000. Thus, the income assessment must be
based on the last drawn remuneration and proven earning capacity, both of
which stand conclusively established through cogent oral and documentary
evidence led by the claimants. It was further submitted that no interference by
this Court is warranted.
9. Learned Counsel for claimants argue that the plea of contributory
negligence to the extent of 50% is wholly untenable and stands conclusively
negatived by the findings already returned by the Ld. Tribunal. The Tribunal,
upon a holistic appreciation of evidence, has categorically held that the accident
occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by
respondent No.1. The FIR was promptly lodged on the statement of PW2, an
eye-witness to the accident, who consistently deposed that the truck, driven in a
rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. This version
stood fully corroborated by the police investigation, which culminated in filing
of a charge-sheet. No material whatsoever was brought on record by the
respondents to suggest any act of negligence on the part of the deceased.
Observations and Findings
10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the available
record, particularly the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
11. The present appeal assails the award passed by the learned Tribunal
primarily on the grounds of erroneous assessment of income of the deceased at
₹30,000 per month and alleged contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.
So far as the assessment of income is concerned, the contention of the appellant
that the Tribunal wrongly included travelling and special allowances is based
on a complete misreading of the material on record and evidence. The material
on record clearly establishes that the deceased was last employed with Edisafe
Logistics Private Limited and was drawing a consolidated stipend/salary of
₹30,000 per month, as proved through the testimony of PW7 and documentary
evidence including the offer letter (Ex.P37) and salary slips Ex.P38 to Ex.P43..
The said stipend did not include any travelling, conveyance or special
allowance. The reliance placed by the appellant on the salary structure of the
deceased's previous employment with Inland World Logistics Private Limited,
where travel allowance was granted, is wholly misconceived. Salary
components of a prior employment cannot be mechanically imported into a
subsequent and distinct employment. The judgment relied upon by the appellant
regarding exclusion of travelling allowance are therefore inapplicable to the
facts of the present case.
12. That the Tribunal has further rightly taken into account the consistent
employment history of the deceased over several years, duly corroborated by
income tax returns and salary records. As per the income tax return for A.Y.
2020-2021, the net annual income of the deceased was ₹3,51,888/-, which
translates to a monthly income proximate to ₹30,000/-. The approach adopted
by the Tribunal in assessing income on the basis of last drawn remuneration is
in consonance with the settled principles of law. Therefore, no perversity or
arbitrariness is shown in the said finding.
13. Further, the plea of contributory negligence is equally devoid of
substance. The Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1, has returned a categorical
finding that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. This finding is based on the eye-witness testimony (PW-2),
prompt registration of FIR, police investigation and filing of charge-sheet
against the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver did not step into the
witness box to rebut the claimants' version or to establish negligence on the
part of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the plea of 50%
contributory negligence has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, no ground for interference with the well-reasoned award
passed by the learned Tribunal is made out. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
15. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stands also disposed of.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
31.01.2026 JUDGE
Saurav Pathania
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable : Yes/No
