[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
22 December vs Ravindra Singh Raghuwanshi & Others on 22 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:11567
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 250 of 2015
22 December, 2025
H.D.F.C Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd
--Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Singh Raghuwanshi & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal and Mr. Bharat Tewari, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the claimants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
The present Appeal From Order has been
preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company)
challenging the judgment and award dated 03.03.2015
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No. 49 of
2013, whereby a sum of Rs.89,83,298/- along with
interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants on
account of the death of Smt. Prem Kumari in a motor
vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts, as borne out from the claim
petition, are that on 26.04.2013 at about 3:00 P.M., the
deceased Smt. Prem Kumari, wife of claimant No.1, was
crossing the Meerut - Ghaziabad National Highway at
Modi Nagar. At that time, the offending vehicle Tata 407
bearing registration No. DL-01-LK-5596, being driven in
a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2, struck
2025:UHC:11567
the deceased, as a result of which she sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed on the spot. It was submitted
that the deceased was aged about 60 years and was
serving as an Associate Professor of Home Science in
Government Post Graduate Degree College, Kotdwara,
District Pauri Garhwal. It was further pleaded that she
was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,10,658/-, and was
the sole earning member of the family. On account of her
untimely death, the claimants suffered immense financial
loss as well as mental agony. On the basis of the
aforesaid averments, the claimants filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,62,00,000/-.
3. In the claim petition, the claimants asserted
that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was pleaded
that the deceased was lawfully crossing the road at the
zebra crossing when she was hit by the vehicle, which
was being driven at a high speed without observing traffic
norms. It was further pleaded that all the documents
relating to the vehicle, including insurance, registration,
permit and driving licence, were valid at the time of the
accident, and therefore, the liability to pay compensation
was joint and several.
4. The owner and the driver of the offending
vehicle filed their written statements denying the
allegations of negligence. It was contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased
herself, who suddenly came on the road without
observing the traffic. It was further pleaded that the
vehicle was being driven carefully and within permissible
limits, and that the driver was holding a valid and
2025:UHC:11567
effective driving licence at the time of the accident. A
prayer was made for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The appellant (Insurance Company) also filed
its written statement denying the averments made in the
claim petition. It was pleaded that the claim petition was
based on incorrect facts and exaggerated income. The
Insurance Company specifically pleaded contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased, challenged the
proof of income, and disputed the quantum of
compensation claimed. It was further pleaded that in
case any liability was found, the same would be subject
to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
learned Tribunal framed the following issues for
determination:
(i) Whether the deceased Prem Kumari died on account of
injuries sustained in an accident occurred on 26.04.2013
at about 3:00 P.M. between Meerut-Ghaziabad National
Highway (Modi Nagar), due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of vehicle Tata 407 No. DL-01-LK-5596?
(ii) Whether the accident took place due to own negligence
of the deceased by crossing the National Highway?
(iii) Whether the documents of vehicle in question as well
as driving licence of its driver were not valid and effective
at the time of accident?
(iv) To what amount of compensation, if any, the
claimants are entitled and from whom?
7. While deciding Issues No.1 and 2 together, the
Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash
2025:UHC:11567
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The
Tribunal relied upon the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
FIR, charge-sheet, site plan, post-mortem report and
other connected documents, and recorded a categorical
finding that the deceased was crossing the road when she
was hit by the vehicle driven at a high speed. The plea of
contributory negligence raised by the opposite parties
was rejected, as no cogent evidence was led to
substantiate the same. Accordingly, Issue No.1 was
decided in favour of the claimants and Issue No.2 was
decided against the opposite parties.
8. While deciding Issue No.3, the Tribunal held
that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company and that the driver was
holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of
the accident. The Insurance Company failed to lead any
oral or documentary evidence to establish breach of
policy conditions. Consequently, Issue No.3 was decided
in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance
Company.
9. While deciding Issue No.4, the Tribunal
assessed the age of the deceased as 60 years on the basis
of the post-mortem report and other documents. The
monthly income of the deceased was determined at
Rs.1,10,658/- on the basis of salary certificate and oral
evidence. After deducting 1/4th towards personal
expenses and applying the multiplier of 9, the Tribunal
computed the loss of dependency. In addition,
conventional heads were also awarded. The Tribunal thus
awarded a total compensation of Rs.89,83,298/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, fastening the
liability upon the Insurance Company.
2025:UHC:11567
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and upon a careful perusal of the record, this Court finds
that the challenge raised in the present appeal is
confined to the computation of compensation. The
findings returned by the Tribunal on the issues of rash
and negligent driving, absence of contributory negligence
and validity of the insurance policy and driving licence
have not been seriously assailed and, upon examination,
do not call for any interference. So far as the assessment
of income is concerned, it is not in dispute that the
deceased was working as an Associate Professor in a
Government Post Graduate Degree College and that her
income was taxable. The Income Tax Return of the
deceased for the Assessment Year 2013 - 14 has been
placed on record, which clearly reflects that her gross
total income was Rs.13,40,479/- and that she had paid
income tax to the tune of Rs.2,08,204/-. In the presence
of such unimpeachable documentary evidence, the
income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of
compensation could not have been taken as the gross
income. The Tribunal committed a manifest error in
computing loss of dependency without deducting the
actual income tax paid. In view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Ranjana Prakash
v. Divisional Manager (2011) 14 SCC 639,
compensation is required to be assessed on the net
income of the deceased. After deducting income tax of
Rs.2,08,204/-, the net annual income of the deceased
comes to Rs.11,32,275/-. This fact is also admitted to the
respondent/claimant that through their Advocate Mr.
H.M. Bhatia.
2025:UHC:11567
11. Furthermore, the deceased had attained the
age of 60 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal
has applied the multiplier method for computation of loss
of dependency. Once the multiplier method is applied,
and in the absence of any separate assessment of
assured future increments, no addition towards future
prospects is warranted. The application of the multiplier
itself takes into account the remaining earning span of
the deceased, and therefore, no further enhancement on
this count is permissible. There is no infirmity in the
deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses,
having regard to the number of dependents, nor in the
application of multiplier of 9, considering the age of the
deceased. On the basis of the net annual income of
Rs.11,32,275/-, after deducting one-fourth towards
personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency comes
to Rs.8,49,206/-. Applying the multiplier of 9, the total
loss of dependency works out to Rs.76,42,854/-. The
amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the
conventional heads, such as loss of estate, funeral
expenses and consortium, are found to be reasonable
and are accordingly affirmed. Upon adding the said
conventional amounts, the total compensation payable to
the claimants is recalculated at Rs.77,42,854/-. The
Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.89,83,298/-, which,
in view of the above discussion, cannot be sustained. The
award, therefore, calls for interference to the limited
extent of recomputation of compensation on the basis of
net income after statutory tax deduction.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated
03.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No.
2025:UHC:11567
49 of 2013 is modified, and the compensation payable to
the claimants is reduced to Rs.77,42,854/-. The liability
of the appellant (Insurance Company) and the mode of
disbursement as directed by the Tribunal shall remain
unchanged. Rs.30 lakhs appears to be deposited by the
appellant/Insurance Company before the Claim Tribunal
pursuant to interim order dated 13.05.2015 passed by
this Court. Rest of the amount of compensation shall be
deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company before
the claim Tribunal within two months from today along
with interest upto date. The respondents/claimants shall
be entitled to receive the compensation so deposited.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.12.2025
AK
