Uttarakhand High Court
AO/44/2025 on 31 October, 2025
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.44 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Siddhant Manral and Mr. Tanmay
Tiwari, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Gaur, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by
the claimants for enhancement of the amount
awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P.
No.69 of 2022.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on that
on 18.02.2022, Jaswant Singh Nayal was
travelling by private bus No. HR-39-E-1367 to
Defence Colony, Cantt., Hisar, Haryana. When
the bus arrived at Gate No.4, Cantt., Hisar, at
approximately 7:00 p.m., Jaswant Singh Nayal
asked the conductor to stop the bus. As he was
about to get off the bus, the driver accelerated
the bus forward, causing Jaswant Singh to fall
off the bus. He sustained serious injuries and
died on the spot. The accident occurred entirely
due to the driver's negligence. The deceased
was a 26-year-old, healthy man and the sole
breadwinner of his family, earning ₹60,000
from a private company, M/s Goodwill
Construction, Hisar, Haryana. He had a
permanent job and his income was expected to
increase in the future. In view of the fact that
appellants have been deprived of their son's
love and have suffered severe mental trauma,
the appellants seek enhancement of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the learned Tribunal committed a
manifest error in failing to appreciate that the
deceased was gainfully employed with M/s
Goodwill Construction, Hisar, Haryana, and was
receiving a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as incentive,
which constituted an integral component of his
remuneration. Consequently, the finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to
the income of the deceased is perverse,
contrary to the evidence on record, and
unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the
learned Tribunal has misread and
misappreciated the testimony of P.W.-3, the co-
owner of the establishment where the deceased
was employed. The impugned award
erroneously observed that P.W.-3 was unaware
of the quantum of incentive paid to the
deceased and that the same remained
unproved. This finding is wholly untenable, as a
plain reading of P.W.-3's deposition establishes
that he categorically stated the deceased was
paid an incentive of ₹1,00,000/-, duly
transferred to the bank account of the
deceased's brother on 19.02.2022. Further, it
was deposed that the incentive formed part of
the deceased's salary, and it is manifest that
both salary and incentive would have
incrementally increased had the deceased not
succumbed to the accident. The Tribunal's
approach of treating the deceased's income as
static and frozen at a particular level disregards
well-settled principles of law relating to future
prospects.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company has
vehemently contended that the appellants have
failed to adduce any cogent, credible, or
conclusive evidence to substantiate the alleged
regular receipt of the incentive component
claimed to form part of the deceased's income.
It is argued that the mere assertion of a co-
owner regarding the payment of incentives,
unsupported by documentary evidence, salary
slips, or any consistent record of monthly
disbursement, cannot be treated as proof of a
regular and integral component of salary. It is
further contended that the learned Tribunal,
upon due appreciation of the evidence on
record, has rightly excluded the alleged
incentive component from the income
computation. Learned counsel submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just,
fair, reasonable, and in consonance with the
settled principles governing the determination
of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Enhancement of the awarded sum on the
basis of speculative, unproven, and irregular
incentives would result in unwarranted
enrichment of the claimants. To fortify his
submission, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Triveni Kodkany Vs. Air India Ltd., reported in
(2021) 19 SCC 214, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that in the absence of cogent
evidence demonstrating that ESOPs or incentive
benefits constituted a fixed part of the salary
package payable as a matter of right
irrespective of performance, such benefits
cannot be added to the income for the purpose
of determining compensation.
6. I have carefully considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and meticulously perused the record
of the case. The learned Tribunal has rightly
appreciated the material on record while
computing the income of the deceased, and this
Court finds no illegality or perversity in the said
finding. As regards the issue of consortium, 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, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Others,
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 1, has categorically
held that consortium is payable to each of the
dependents at ₹40,000/- per head. Further, in
view of the dictum of the Constitution Bench in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the said
conventional heads are liable to be enhanced at
the rate of 10% every three years.
7. In view of the above principles, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
deserves to be modified accordingly.
8. Accordingly, while upholding the findings
of the learned Tribunal with regard to the
exclusion of incentive component from the
income assessment, this Court deems it just
and proper 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 as per the dictum of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra). Except for the aforesaid
modification, the rest of the findings and
directions contained in the impugned award are
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.
9. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
31.10.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a2
0dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C
B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2025.10.31 17:22:04 +05'30'
