High Court · 2025

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat , Advocat e for t he appellant . Mrs. Sheet al Selw al, Advocat e for t he respondent nos.1 t o 7.

2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by t he I nsur ance Com pany, challenging t he awar d dat ed 19.02.2025 passed by learned Judge, M.A.C.T./ I st Addit ional Dist rict Haldwani, Dist rict Nainit al in M.A.C.P. No. 20 of 2023, wher eby t he learned Tribunal has direct ed t he I nsur ance Com pany t o pay t he am ount of com pensat ion and t hen recov er from t he owner of t he insur ed vehicle. I t t hat Lear ned counsel

3. t he appellant subm it s t hat , despit e due service of not ice, t he ow ner of t he offending vehicle failed t o appear before t he learned Tribunal, as a t he proceedings were result of w hich conduct ed ex- part e against him . cont ended learned Tribunal t he com m it t ed a m anifest error in direct ing t he appellant –I nsurance Com pany t o sat isfy t he awar d and t her eaft er r ecover t he sam e from t he ow ner of t he vehicle. Lear ned counsel furt her subm it s t hat no driving licence of t he driver of t he alleged offending v ehicle was produced befor e t he lear ned Tribunal. He draw s at t ent ion t o t he evidence adduced by t he appellant , including t he Gener al Diary ent ry of I nvest igat ing Police Team , which records t hat t he accident occur red due t o t he collision wit h a t ract or–t rolley and not wit h t he alleged I nnova car. I t is furt her cont ended t hat t he learned Tribunal err ed in enhancing t he not ional incom e by adding ₹1,000/- per m ont h as Dear ness Allowance t o t he m inim um wages prescribed t he for an unskilled labour er w hich, according t o t he appellant , is im perm issible in law. Per cont ra, learned counsel appearing 4. on behalf of respondent nos. 1 t o 7 subm it s t hat t he findings ret urned by t he lear ned Tribunal ar e based on proper appr eciat ion of evidence and set t led principles of law, and t her efore, do not call for any int erference by t his Court it s appellat e j urisdict ion. in exercise of

5. Upon due considerat ion of t he rival subm issions advanced by lear ned counsel for t he part ies and t he m at erial available on recor d, t his Cour t finds t hat t he learned Tribunal er red in enhancing t he m ont hly incom e of the deceased by adding ₹1,000/- as Dearness Allowance t he not ified m inim um wages. As per t he not ificat ion issued by t he Labour Depart m ent applicable at t he relevant t im e, t he m inim um wages for an unskilled labourer were ₹8,213/- per m ont h. Hence, t he sam e is t o be adopt ed for com put at ion of com pensat ion. The addit ion of a not ional Dearness Allowance, wit hout st at ut ory sanct ion or evident iary basis, is not per m issible. t o I n Sarla Verm a’s case ( Supra) , t he 6. Hon’ble Suprem e Court st andar dized t he m et hod for deduct ion t owards personal and living expenses of t he deceased based on t he num ber of dependent s and also laid t he appr opriat e m ult ipliers. The Const it ut ion Bench of t he Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of “ Nat ional I nsurance Com pany Lim it ed Vs. Pranay Set hi and ot hers, report ed in ( 2017) 16 SCC 680, while affir m ing t he principles laid down in furt her Sarla Verm a’s cryst allized fut ure t he prospect s t o t he incom e of t he deceased com pensat ion under convent ional heads. Thus, bot h j udgm ent s t oget her ensure uniform it y, consist ency , and fair ness in aw arding j ust com pensat ion. law by adding st andar dizing ( Supra) , t he t ot al com pensat ion 7. Accordingly, payable t o t he claim ant s is recalculat ed, t he deceased’s monthly income of ₹8,213, annualized t o ₹98,556, is reduced by one- fifth towards personal expenses (₹19,711), result ing in an annual cont ribut ion t o t he family of ₹78,845; adding 40% towards future prospects (₹31,538) gives a total annual income of ₹1,10,383, which, m ult iplied by 16 as t he m ult iplier, am ount s loss of dependency of ₹17,66,128; adding consortium (₹40,000 × 7 = ₹2,80,000), loss of estate (₹15,000), and funeral expenses com pensat ion payable t o t he claim ant s is assessed at ₹20,76,128/- , in place of t he am ount awar ded by t he lear ned Tribunal. (₹15,000), is, t he appeal above, t her efore, t he awar d passed by

8. part ly The t he allowed, and learned Tribunal is m odified t o t he ext ent indicat ed appellant – I nsurance Com pany is direct ed t o sat isfy t he m odified awar d w it hin six w eek s fr om t he dat e of t his j udgm ent , aft er adj ust ing any am ount already deposit ed, while all ot her findings of t he learned Tribunal on issues of liabilit y and recovery right s are affirm ed, being in accor dance wit h law.

9. The st at ut ory am ount , if deposit ed by t he appellant at t he t im e of filing t he appeal, shall be r em it t ed t o t he Tribunal concerned for adj ust m ent t owards t he award am ount . The balance am ount , if any, shall be released in favour of t he claim ant s as per t he dir ect ions of t he Tribunal. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

14.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536 5445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D45 4C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL