Uttarakhand High Court
AO/286/2019 on 30 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9608
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.286 of 2019
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Siddhant Manral, Mr. Karmanya
Pande and Mr. Tanmay Tiwari, Advocates
for the claimants/appellants.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Bailwal, Advocate
for the respondent no.2.
2. This Appeal from Order has been
filed by the claimants for enhancement of
the amount awarded by learned
M.A.C.T./IVth Additional District Judge,
Dehradun vide order dated 28.02.2019
passed in M.A.C.P. No.215 of 2015.
3. Briefly stated, on 12.07.2015, the
deceased-Anand Mohan Garg was
travelling from Meerut to Dehradun in his
Alto car bearing registration no. UP15-
AE/1352. At about 10:30 a.m., when he
reached near Guru Nanak Hotel,
approximately 200 steps from Rampur
Tiraha Police Station, Chhapar,
Muzaffarnagar Bypass, a Swift car bearing
registration no. UP12-AF/7338, being
driven rashly, negligently, and on the
wrong side of the road, collided head-on
with the Alto car. As a result, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to death on the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the learned Tribunal
committed manifest error in computing
the income of the deceased and,
consequently, awarded inadequate
compensation. It is argued that the
income of the deceased was duly proved
by producing the Income Tax Returns
2025:UHC:9608
(I.T.Rs) for the Assessment Years 2013-
14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, which clearly
reflected his annual income as
₹4,80,670/- for the Financial Year 2015-
16. The said income was also corroborated
by the deposition of P.W.3-Hitesh Kumar
Sharma. It is contended that the learned
Tribunal erred in considering only a 10%
increase towards future prospects;
whereas, in light of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & others, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, the appropriate addition
towards future prospects for a self-
employed person below 50 years of age
ought to have been 25%. Further, the
learned Tribunal has granted only
₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium;
whereas, both the claimants are entitled
to ₹40,000/- each under the head of
consortium, as per the dictum of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130. It is also submitted
that an amount of ₹15,000/- ought to
have been awarded towards loss of estate,
in consonance with the judgment rendered
in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He
further submits that the Tribunal ought to
have taken the highest of the I.T.Rs. filed
by the deceased as the basis for
determining his income, in view of the
settled principle that the highest proven
income in recent years represents the
actual earning capacity at the time of
accident.
5. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Insurance Company supports the
impugned award and submits that the
2025:UHC:9608
Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order
after due appreciation of evidence and
materials on record. It is contended that
the addition of only 10% towards future
prospects was appropriate in the facts of
the case, and no further enhancement is
warranted.
6. I have considered the rival
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record of the case
carefully. The income of the deceased as
per his I.T.R. for the Assessment Year
2015-16 is ₹4,80,670/-. The Tribunal,
however, erred in averaging the income of
previous years instead of taking the latest
and highest return, which reflects the
deceased's actual earning capacity at the
time of accident.
7. As per the dictum of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur &
others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 1,
consortium is payable to each of the
dependents at ₹40,000/- per head. In
addition, ₹15,000/- is to be awarded
towards loss of estate as per the dictum of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
8. In view of the above principles, the
compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal deserves to be modified
accordingly.
9. Accordingly, the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal stands
recalculated, and a sum of ₹40,000/- each
is hereby awarded to the claimants
towards loss of consortium, together with
an additional sum of ₹15,000/- towards
loss of estate, in conformity with the
2025:UHC:9608
principles laid down in the case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra). The aforesaid amounts
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.
10. The appeal is, therefore, partly
allowed, and the award passed by the
learned Tribunal is modified to the extent
indicated above, and 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.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.10.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445
e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5
109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2025.10.31 16:56:19 +05'30'
