Others v. Counsel for

Smt. Shakuntala Devi And 3 Others Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) Court No. - 38 .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Amit Singh : : HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurance company against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura, in MACP No. 482 of 2023, Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Another vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, whereby, compensation of Rs.33,33,829/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants for the untimely death of Ankush Singh in a road accident on 22.12.2022.

2. Factual matrix is that the claimants son Ankush Singh was going on motorcycle No.UP-79-F-3968 on 22.12.2022 at 03.00 PM from Agra to Mathura, then offending truck No. HR-55-AH-6183 came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the motorcycle, resulting in serious injuries to Ankush Singh, who died during treatment at District Hospital Mathura. The FIR regarding the above accident was registered at P.S. Farah, District Mathura on 24.12.2022 being Case Crime No.439 of 2022 under Sections, 279, 338, 304-A IPC in which after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck No. HR-55-AH-6183. At the time of the accident the deceased was about 26 years old, was bachelor and was working as territory business manager in Anarvin Healthcare, Agra and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. He was also selling medicines in the wholesale market and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from that profession. According to the claimants, he was earning Rs.37,000/- per month, who also filed his income tax return disclosing his annual income of Rs.2,70,910/- for the financial year 2018-19. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.54,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As per the income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2018-19, the Tribunal assessed his annual income as Rs. 2,70,910/-. Since, the deceased was bachelor, the Tribunal made a deduction of one-half from his income, applied the multiplier of 17, granted future prospects @ 40%, awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 2 FAFO No. 2394 of 2025 funeral expenses. The tribunal did not grant interest on the future prospects. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, it was ordered to indemnify the claimants.

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal erred in assessing the compensation on the basis of income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2018-19, because for the subsequent financial year i.e. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, no income tax return was filed by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in absence of documentary proof of the income of compensation on the basis of his notional income. tribunal should have assessed the deceased,

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

5. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a territory business manager in Anarvin Healthcare, Agra and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. Beside this, the deceased was also selling medicines in the wholesale market and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In all, the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.37,000/- per month. The claimants also filed the income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2018-19, assessment year 2019-20, in which it was disclosed that his gross annual income was Rs.2,70,910/-, on which no income tax was payable and on this basis, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,70,910/-.

6. It is true that the claimants have not filed the income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 but even then, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was not earning during this period. It is also apparent that since the deceased’s income was below the taxable limit (after claiming standard deduction payable to salaried employees) as such, there was no statutory requirement on his part to file the income tax return for the above assessment years. It is also apparent that the Tribunal has erred by granting future prospects at the rate of only 40% and not awarding interest on it, which is contrary to Rule 220-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which mandates that where the age of the deceased is below 40 years, then future prospects at the rate of 50% should be awarded to the claimants. Further, not granting interest on future prospects is also erroneous as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru & Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1431 and also by this Court in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Yashoda Neutral Citation: 2025 AHC 184060.

7. In view of this, in the totality of the circumstances, if the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as per the income tax return of the 3 FAFO No. 2394 of 2025 financial year 2018-19, then it cannot be said to be perverse in any manner whatsoever. The Tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.33,33,829/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

10. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2025 is affirmed.

12. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 14, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.) HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shakuntala Devi And 3 Others Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) Court No. - 38 .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Amit Singh : : HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurance company against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura, in MACP No. 482 of 2023, Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Another vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, whereby, compensation of Rs.33,33,829/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants for the untimely death of Ankush Singh in a road accident on 22.12.2022.

2. Factual matrix is that the claimants son Ankush Singh was going on motorcycle No.UP-79-F-3968 on 22.12.2022 at 03.00 PM from Agra to Mathura, then offending truck No. HR-55-AH-6183 came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the motorcycle, resulting in serious injuries to Ankush Singh, who died during treatment at District Hospital Mathura. The FIR regarding the above accident was registered at P.S. Farah, District Mathura on 24.12.2022 being Case Crime No.439 of 2022 under Sections, 279, 338, 304-A IPC in which after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck No. HR-55-AH-6183. At the time of the accident the deceased was about 26 years old, was bachelor and was working as territory business manager in Anarvin Healthcare, Agra and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. He was also selling medicines in the wholesale market and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from that profession. According to the claimants, he was earning Rs.37,000/- per month, who also filed his income tax return disclosing his annual income of Rs.2,70,910/- for the financial year 2018-19. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.54,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As per the income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2018-19, the Tribunal assessed his annual income as Rs. 2,70,910/-. Since, the deceased was bachelor, the Tribunal made a deduction of one-half from his income, applied the multiplier of 17, granted future prospects @ 40%, awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 2 FAFO No. 2394 of 2025 funeral expenses. The tribunal did not grant interest on the future prospects. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, it was ordered to indemnify the claimants.

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal erred in assessing the compensation on the basis of income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2018-19, because for the subsequent financial year i.e. 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, no income tax return was filed by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in absence of documentary proof of the income of compensation on the basis of his notional income. tribunal should have assessed the deceased,

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

5. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a territory business manager in Anarvin Healthcare, Agra and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. Beside this, the deceased was also selling medicines in the wholesale market and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In all, the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.37,000/- per month. The claimants also filed the income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2018-19, assessment year 2019-20, in which it was disclosed that his gross annual income was Rs.2,70,910/-, on which no income tax was payable and on this basis, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,70,910/-.

6. It is true that the claimants have not filed the income tax return of the deceased for the financial year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 but even then, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was not earning during this period. It is also apparent that since the deceased’s income was below the taxable limit (after claiming standard deduction payable to salaried employees) as such, there was no statutory requirement on his part to file the income tax return for the above assessment years. It is also apparent that the Tribunal has erred by granting future prospects at the rate of only 40% and not awarding interest on it, which is contrary to Rule 220-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which mandates that where the age of the deceased is below 40 years, then future prospects at the rate of 50% should be awarded to the claimants. Further, not granting interest on future prospects is also erroneous as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru & Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1431 and also by this Court in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Yashoda Neutral Citation: 2025 AHC 184060.

7. In view of this, in the totality of the circumstances, if the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as per the income tax return of the 3 FAFO No. 2394 of 2025 financial year 2018-19, then it cannot be said to be perverse in any manner whatsoever. The Tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.33,33,829/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

10. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2025 is affirmed.

12. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 14, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.) HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad