Savita Devi And Others vs Govind Yadav And Others

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
142 CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
Savita Devi and others ....Appellants
Vs.
Govind Yadav and others ....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate
for the applicants/appellants.
*
HARSH BUNGER J.
CM-4686-CII-2026:
Present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 2
days, in filing the main case i.e. FAO-1243-2026.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 2 days, in
filing the main case i.e. FAO-1243-2026 is condoned.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M):
1. The present  appeal has been filed by claimants, seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.97,68,010/- awarded by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as the
“learned Tribunal”) vide award dated 21.11.2025 passed in MACP case
No. 116 of 2024, on account of death of Anil Kumar in a motor vehicular
accident.
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -2-
2. Briefly, the present appellants/claimants filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘1988 Act’), on
the plea that on 01.02.2024, Anil Kumar was going from village Ghatal
towards his village Garhi on his motorcycle bearing registration
No. HR-36AJ-2924. When he reached near Harijan Dhani Ghatal-Garhi road
then a car bearing registration No. RJ-40CN-5832 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘offending vehicle’) being driven by Govind Yadav in a rash and
negligent manner and at a high speed struck against the motorcycle of Anil
Kumar. On account of the impact, Anil Kumar fell down on the road and
received fatal injuries on his body. Anil Kumar was taken to General
Hospital, Rewari, where he was declared brought dead. A case FIR No.20
dated 02.02.2024 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered at Police
Station, Sector-6, Dharuhera, Rewari.
2.1 The appellants/claimants averred that Anil Kumar (deceased)
was working as a Supervisor in Hero Motorcorp Limited, Dharuhera, and
was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Accordingly, they claimed
Rs.5,00,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Upon issuance of notice in the claim petition, Govind Yadav
(driver of offending vehicle) and Neeraj Yadav (owner of offending vehicle)
submitted a joint written statement opposing the claim petition. Similarly,
the Insuance Company also opposed the claim of the appellants.
4. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident, resulting into death of deceased Anil
Kumar took place on 01.02.2024 out of use of offending
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -3-
vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-40CB-5832 driven by
respondent No.1 as alleged?OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, what amount of compensation the
petitioners are entitled to and from whom?OPP
3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident?
OPR
4. Relief.”
5 Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence on the
aforesaid issues.
6. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the matter, under
issue No.1 held that Govind Yadav was driving the offending vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which Anil
Kumar died.
6.1 Further, while determining the compensation, the learned
Tribunal took the age of the deceased – Anil Kumar as 42 years at the time
of his death by placing reliance upon his date of birth mentioned on his
Aadhar Card (Ex. PF). The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of
the deceased – Anil Kumar as Rs. 63,683/- per month and further added 25%
towards future prospects. Since there were 4 dependents on the
deceased – Anil Kumar, accordingly, 1/4th deduction was made towards
personal expenses. Further, considering the age of the deceased - Anil
Kumar, multiplier of 14 was applied. The total compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is as under:-
Sr.No. Heads Calculation
₹
i) Income
7,37,776/-per annum
₹
ii) 25% of above (1) to be added 1,84,444/-
as future prospects. (7,37,776 + 1,84,444/-
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -4-
= 9,22,220/-)
iii) 1/4 deducted as personal
expenses of the deceased
since having 04 dependents
(As per Sarla Verma's law,
2009(3) Law Herald(SC),
2107
9,22,220/ - 2,30,555 =
6,91,665/-(round off)
v) Multiplier (deceased between
41to 45 years) as per Sarla
Verma's ruling
14
₹
vi) Loss of dependency (6,91,665 96,83,310,/-
x 14)
₹
vii) Loss of estate 18,150/-
₹
viii) Funeral expenses 18,150/-
ix) Loss of Consortium 48400
₹
Total Compensation 97,68,010/-
6.2 The learned Tribunal has granted the aforesaid compensation
along with interest @ 6% from the date of institution of claim petition till the
realization of the amount. Further, the Insurance Company has been held
liable to pay the compensation vide award dated 21.11.2025.
7. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants/claimants have filed the
present appeal before this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
learned Tribunal has erred in law and facts in assessing the income of the
deceased – Anil Kumar.
8.1 It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted
the allowances as well as the income tax from the income of the deceased. It
is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has further erred in granting
only 25% future prospects whereas the same had to be 30%.
8.2 No other argument has been raised.
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -5-
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused
the paperbook with his able assistance.
10. As regards the first contention of the appellants that the learned
Tribunal has erred in deducting the allowances as well as income tax from
the income of the deceased – Anil Kumar; suffice it to say that the Hon’ble
Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in case of “Oriental Insurance
Company Limited vs. Smt. Sarita Devi Panwar”; 2006 (50) R.C.R. Civil
509 , held that the amounts which are being paid to the deceased as Basic
Salary, Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance, only ought to be
taken into consideration while assessing the income of the deceased.
10.1 Concededly, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased by observing as under:-
“29. As regards, income of deceased Anil Kumar , petitioners
in their claim petition pleaded that deceased was earning
₹
100,000/- per month by doing work in Hero Moto Corp
Dharuhera as supervisor and such fact was reiterated by PW1
Hari Ram i.e. father of deceased. Moreover, the petitioners
have also examined PW4 Abdulla Malik. Manager Hero
Motocorp Ltd Dharuhera who in his testimony proved salary
slips of deceased Anil Kumar EX PW4/1 to EX. PW4/16. Even
in the salary slip for the month of January 2024 EX PW4/14 in
which total earning of deceased has been mentioned as
109,221/-. Even PW4 Abdulla Malik in his cross-examination
deposed that in the salary slip for the month of January 2024,
basic salary for the month of Jan 2024 is Rs.44,435/-, variable
Dearness Allowance Rs.7250/-, HRA Rs.11.998/-have been
mentioned and that aforesaid amount of the above three heads
is Rs 63,683/- was fixed salary of deceased Anil. He further
deposed that in the salary slip EX PW4/14, amount of
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -6-
Rs.25,960/- is regarding medical reimbursement, Rs9815/- is
regarding productive incentive amount which are not part of
salary of deceased Anil. Hence, income of deceased Anil Kumar
has been assessed as 63,683/- per month and annual salary
comes to be 07,64,196 (Rs 63,683/-X12= Rs 7,64,196/-) Even
otherwise, PW3 Narender Singh, office Superintendent, Income
Tax office, Rewari in his testimony deposed that as per return
EX PW3/A for the assessment year 2024-25, net salary Rs
8,07,452/ and after standard deduction, income chargeable
under head of salary, Rs 7,57,452/- has been mentioned.”
10.2 Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Reshma Kumari
and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another”, 2013, (9), SCC, 65 , held that
where the annual income is in the taxable range, then the actual salary means
“actual salary minus tax”.
10.3 Keeping in view the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, I see no
merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the learned
Tribunal has erred in excluding the allowances as well as the income tax
from the salary of the deceased – Anil Kumar.
11. As regards the second contention that the learned Tribunal has
erred in granting only 25% future prospects instead of 30%; it is noticed that
the deceased – Anil Kumar was working in a private concern on salary basis
and at the time of accident his age was 42 years. Accordingly, in terms of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of
“National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others”,
2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 1009, only addition of 25% towards future prospects
is to be made where the deceased is between the age of 40 to 50 years and
was working on fixed salary.
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

CM-4686-CII-2026 in/and
FAO-1243-2026 (O&M) -7-
12. Considering the totality of circumstances, it is clear that fair
compensation has been awarded to the appellants. No doubt, Chapter-12 of
the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of
profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana & Another v. Jasbir
Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID #64043 and Divisional Controller
K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the
amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a
bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a
pittance. In the case of "General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas &
Others" 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding
factor for determining the compensation.
13. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed .
14. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.09.14 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh