[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
AO/40/2022 on 19 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11402
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
A.O. No.40 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rakshit Srivastava, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava,
Advocate and Mr. Shankar Aggarwal,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha,
Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5.
2. The present Appeal from Order has
been preferred by the appellant-
Insurance Company assailing the
judgment and award dated 30.10.2021
rendered by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in
M.A.C.P. No. 174 of 2019, whereby the
learned Tribunal directed the appellant to
pay compensation to the claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the learned Tribunal failed
to appreciate that the alleged accident
occurred on 05.05.2016 and the
deceased succumbed to injuries on the
same day, yet the F.I.R. was lodged
belatedly on 24.10.2016, i.e., after an
inordinate delay of 172 days. It is further
submitted that the claim petition itself
was instituted more than three years
after the death of the husband of
respondent no. 1, without any plausible
explanation for such delay. Learned
counsel further contends that there are
inconsistencies with respect to the age of
the deceased. As per the Aadhar Card,
the deceased was 38 years of age at the
time of the accident, whereas P.W.1, the
wife of the deceased, deposed that the
2025:UHC:11402
deceased was 44 years old at the time of
death, but no documentary proof was
furnished to substantiate the said claim.
It is further argued that the claimants
failed to adduce any cogent evidence to
establish the income of the deceased.
Despite this, the learned Tribunal
erroneously assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at ₹8,300/-
relying upon the Notification No.
312/VIII/19-228(Shram)/2001-Bhaag-II
Dehradun dated 06.03.2019 issued by
the Government of Uttarakhand. It is
argued that the deceased was a resident
of Pilibhit (U.P.) and allegedly employed
as an Electrician in Delhi; hence, the
determination of his income on the basis
of a notification issued by the
Government of Uttarakhand is wholly
unwarranted. Furthermore, the relied-
upon notification was issued in the year
2019 and cannot be given retrospective
effect to an accident that occurred in
2016. Therefore, the impugned judgment
and award dated 30.10.2021 are vitiated
in law and liable to be set aside. It is
further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has erred in computing the
notional income of the deceased, which
ought to have been determined in
accordance with the notification dated
23.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of
Rural Development prescribing the State-
wise schedule of rates for manual labour,
wherein the rate for the State of
Uttarakhand was fixed at ₹174 per day.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 1 to 5 submits that the
findings returned by the learned Tribunal
are based on due appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence as well as the
settled principles of law and, therefore,
warrant no interference by this Court in
2025:UHC:11402
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record, this
Court finds that the occurrence of the
accident and the involvement of the
offending vehicle are not in dispute. Mere
delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot, by
itself, be a ground to disbelieve the
claim. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan & others, reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 693 has held that delay in
lodging the F.I.R. in motor accident
cases is not fatal when the accident is
otherwise proved. Similarly, delay in
filing the claim petition does not defeat a
just claim for compensation once death
due to the accident stands established.
6. However, this Court finds merit in
the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company with
respect to the assessment of income.
The accident occurred on 05.05.2016,
whereas the learned Tribunal assessed
the income of the deceased on the basis
of a notification dated 06.03.2019 issued
by the Government of Uttarakhand. It is
well settled that income must be
determined as on the date of accident
and subsequent notifications cannot be
applied retrospectively.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in (2011) 13 SCC 236, has held
that notional income must be assessed
on a reasonable basis prevailing at the
relevant time.
8. In the case in hand, the deceased
was neither proved to be employed in
Uttarakhand nor was any documentary
2025:UHC:11402
evidence adduced to establish his actual
income. In such circumstances, the
income ought to have been determined
on the basis of the notification dated
23.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of
Rural Development prescribing ₹174 per
day for manual labour in the State of
Uttarakhand.
9. Accordingly, the monthly income of
the deceased is reassessed at ₹5,220/-
(₹174 × 30) and the annual income at
₹62,640/-. As the deceased was below
the age of 40 years, 40% of the income
is liable to be added towards future
prospects in view of the Constitution
Bench judgment rendered in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi & others, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, the annual
income including future prospects comes
to ₹87,696/-. After deducting one-fourth
towards personal and living expenses, as
laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,
the annual dependency is assessed at
₹65,772/-. Considering the age of the
deceased as 38 years, the multiplier of
15 is applicable. Consequently, the loss
of dependency is recalculated at
₹9,86,580/-. In addition thereto, the
claimants are entitled to the conventional
heads as per settled law. An amount of
₹15,000/- is awarded towards loss of
estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. Further, in view of the law laid
down in Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & others, reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130, each of the five claimants is
entitled to ₹40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, amounting to ₹2,00,000/- in
total. Thus, the total compensation
2025:UHC:11402
payable to the claimants is recalculated
as ₹9,86,580/- towards loss of
dependency, ₹15,000/- towards loss of
estate, ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium, ₹15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The total of all the heads of
compensation comes to ₹12,16,580/-.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
while the finding of the learned Tribunal
on negligence and liability does not
warrant interference, the computation of
compensation requires modification.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and
award dated 30.10.2021 stand modified
to the extent indicated above. The
appellant-Insurance Company shall
deposit the modified compensation
amount of ₹12,16,580/-, after adjusting
any amount already paid, within the time
stipulated by the learned Tribunal. The
claimants/respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5
shall each be entitled to compensation of
₹2,25,000/-. The said amounts shall be
deposited in fixed deposits in their
respective names and shall remain so
until they attain the age of majority,
upon which the same shall be released to
them. The balance amount of the award
shall be paid to the claimant/respondent
no.1. The remaining terms and
conditions of the award shall remain
unaltered.
12. The statutory amount, if deposited
by the appellant at the time of filing the
appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal
concerned for adjustment towards the
award amount. The balance amount, if
any, shall be released in favour of the
claimants as per the directions of the
Tribunal.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
19.12.2025
Arpan
ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66,
cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2025.12.19 17:53:04 +05'30'
2025:UHC:11402
