[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
AO/430/2022 on 11 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11058
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
AO No.430 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. Ms. Bhavya Sharma, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned
counsel for respondent no.2.
3. This Appeal from Order has been filed
by the claimants seeking enhancement of
the compensation awarded by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District
Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri, vide award dated
01.10.2022 in M.A.C.T. No. 18 of 2020.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on
01.08.2020, the husband of appellant No. 1,
Pankaj Kumar, was travelling from Haridwar
to his home at Shivrajpur, Kotdwar, on a
Honda Activa scooter (No. UK 08 AN 7971).
At about 7:40 p.m., between Chidiyapur and
Samipur on the East Ganga Canal Road,
approximately 10 km from Mandawali Police
Station, an Eicher truck (No. HR 45C-9669),
being driven rashly and negligently towards
Haridwar, collided head-on with the
deceased's scooter. The truck driver
abandoned the vehicle and fled from the
spot. Pankaj Kumar, aged 28 years, died on
the scene. He was employed as a Junior
Assistant in the Animal Husbandry
Department and was earning ₹40,000 per
month.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the learned Tribunal committed
a manifest error in failing to appreciate the
established income of the deceased, who
was a permanent employee earning ₹40,000
per month. Consequently, the finding of the
learned Tribunal regarding the income of the
2025:UHC:11058
deceased is perverse and contrary to the
evidence on record. It is further urged that
the Tribunal has not correctly applied the
principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680,
particularly with respect to the addition of
future prospects and computation of the
conventional heads. Since the deceased was
28 years of age, an addition of 50% towards
future prospects, and proper application of
the principles governing consortium and
other conventional heads, ought to have
been made.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Insurance Company
vehemently contends that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair, and
reasonable, and is in consonance with the
settled principles governing the
determination of compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. I have carefully considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record. The
learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the
material on record while determining the
income of the deceased, and this Court finds
no illegality or perversity in that finding.
However, as regards the issue of loss of
consortium and future prospects,
considering that the deceased was 28 years
of age at the time of the accident, and in
view of the dictum of the Constitution Bench
in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amounts under
the conventional heads are liable to be
enhanced by 10% every three years, and
the addition towards future prospects should
be 50% instead of 40%, as applied by the
Tribunal.
8. In view of the above principles, the
compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal deserves to be modified to the
limited extent indicated hereinbelow.
2025:UHC:11058
9. Accordingly, while upholding the
findings of the learned Tribunal with regard
to entitlement to consortium, this Court
deems it appropriate to modify the award to
the limited extent of recalculating the
compensation by granting consortium at
₹40,000/- each to the dependents, subject
to enhancement at the rate of 10% every
three years, and by applying 50% addition
towards future prospects in accordance with
the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra). Except for the
aforesaid modification, the remaining
findings and directions contained in the
impugned award stand affirmed. The
Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the
modified award within six weeks from the
date of this judgment, after adjusting any
amount already deposited.
10. The Appeal from Order stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
11.12.2025
BS
BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA9
0, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.12.11 17:57:30 +05'30'
