High Court · 2025

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhat ia, lear ned counsel for t he appellant .

2. Ms. Bhavya Shar m a, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.C.S. Rawat , lear ned counsel for respondent no.2.

3. This Appeal from Order has been filed by t he claim ant s seeking enhancem ent of t he com pensat ion awarded by t he learned Mot or Accident Claim s Tribunal/ Addl. Dist rict Judge, Kot dwar , Pauri, vide awar d dat ed 01.10.2022 in M.A.C.T. No. 18 of 2020.

4. Fact s of t he case, in brief, ar e t hat on 01.08.2020, t he husband of appellant No. 1, Pankaj Kum ar, was t ravelling from Haridwar t o his hom e at Shivraj pur , Kot dwar, on a Honda Act iva scoot er ( No. UK 08 AN 7971) . At about 7: 40 p.m ., bet ween Chidiyapur and Sam ipur on t he East Ganga Canal Road, approxim at ely 10 km from Mandaw ali Police St at ion, an Eicher t ruck ( No. HR 45C- 9669) , being driven rashly and negligent ly t owards t he Haridwar, deceased’s driver abandoned t he v ehicle and fled from t he spot . Pankaj Kum ar, aged 28 y ear s, died on t he scene. He w as em ployed as a Junior Assist ant Anim al Husbandry Depart m ent and was earning ₹40,000 per m ont h. head- on w it h scoot er. The collided t ruck t he Lear ned counsel t he appellant s 5. subm it s t hat t he learned Tribunal com m it t ed a m anifest error in failing t o appr eciat e t he est ablished incom e of t he deceased, w ho was a permanent employee earning ₹40,000 per m ont h. Consequent ly, t he finding of t he learned Tribunal r egar ding t he incom e of t he laid down by deceased is per v erse and cont rar y t o t he evidence on r ecor d. I t is furt her ur ged t hat t he Tribunal has not correct ly applied t he t he Const it ut ion principles Bench in Nat ional I nsurance Co. Lt d. v. Pranay Set hi, 680, ( 2017) part icularly wit h r espect t o t he addit ion of fut ur e prospect s and com put at ion of t he convent ional heads. Since t he deceased was 28 years of age, an addit ion of 50% t owards fut ur e prospect s, and proper applicat ion of t he principles governing consort ium and ot her conv ent ional heads, ought t o hav e been m ade. 16 SCC t he

6. Per cont ra, learned counsel appearing I nsurance Com pany on behalf of vehem ent ly cont ends t hat t he com pensat ion awar ded by t he Tribunal is j ust , fair, and reasonable, and is in consonance wit h t he set t led t he det erm inat ion of com pensat ion under t he Mot or Vehicles Act , 1988. gover ning principles

7. I have car efully consider ed t he rival subm issions advanced by lear ned counsel for t he part ies and per used t he r ecord. The learned Tribunal has right ly appr eciat ed t he m at erial on record w hile det erm ining t he incom e of t he deceased, and t his Court finds no illegalit y or perversit y in t hat finding. Howev er , as regards t he issue of loss of pr ospect s, consort ium considering t hat t he deceased was 28 year s of age at t he t im e of t he accident , and in view of t he dict um of t he Const it ut ion Bench in Pranay Set hi ( supra) , t he am ount s under t he convent ional heads ar e t o be enhanced by 10% ev ery t hr ee y ears, and t he addit ion t owar ds fut ur e prospect s should be 50% inst ead of 40% , as applied by t he Tribunal. fut ur e liable

8. I n view of t he above principles, t he com pensat ion awarded by learned Tribunal deserves t o be m odified t o t he lim it ed ext ent indicat ed hereinbelow . t he upholding recalculat ing t o consort ium , lim it ed ext ent of Accordingly, while

9. t he findings of t he learned Tribunal wit h regar d t his Court t o ent it lem ent deem s it appropriat e t o m odify t he awar d t o t he t he com pensat ion by grant ing consor t ium at ₹40,000/- each t o t he dependent s, subj ect t o enhancem ent at t he rat e of 10% ev ery t hree y ears, and by applying 50% addit ion t owards fut ure pr ospect s in accor dance wit h t he dict um of t he Hon’ble Supr em e Court in Pranay Set hi t he rem aining aforesaid m odificat ion, findings and direct ions cont ained t he im pugned awar d st and affir m ed. The 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 alr eady deposit ed. ( supra) . Except t he

10. The Appeal disposed of accor dingly. fr om Order st ands ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

11.12.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA9 0, cn=BALWANT SINGH