Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru vs Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Others,

Mr. Siddhant Manral and Mr. Tanmay Tiwari, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate respondent no.1. Mr. Rohit Kumar Gaur, Advocate for respondent no.2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by 2. 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 company, M/s Goodwill from a private 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, compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. enhancement appellants Learned counsel

4. 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 finding Consequently, remuneration. Tribunal impugned employed. the same has misread income of the deceased recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the learned misappreciated the testimony of P.W.-3, the co- owner of the establishment where the deceased The erroneously observed that P.W.-3 was unaware of the quantum of incentive paid to the deceased and 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 incentive of ₹1,00,000/-, duly paid an the bank account of transferred 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 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. salary and Per contra, learned counsel appearing on 5. behalf of 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 the alleged record, has rightly excluded income incentive 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 in unwarranted result incentives would component reliance upon enrichment of the claimants. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed 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 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. In view of the above principles, the 7. 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 the aforesaid Sethi modification, the rest of the findings and (supra). Except 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. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of

9. accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.)

31.10.2025 Arpan