CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs SUREKHABEN NARENDRABHAI DHOLAKIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1441 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
SUREKHABEN NARENDRABHAI DHOLAKIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 27.01.2022 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) & Principal District Judge, Kachchh at
Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No. 468 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal had
partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.16,81,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing
of the claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal,
as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
i. On 14.10.2011, Mr. Narendrabhai (hereinafter referred to
as the “ deceased ”) was proceeding from Sanskar Nagar
to Kharinadi Samsan via Kajlinagar road by driving a
Honda Dio scooter bearing registration No.GJ-12-BG-8844
to attend the funeral ceremony of his relative. The
deceased was riding the said scooter at very moderate
speed, by observing traffic rules. When he reached near
the place of the accident, one Xylo Jeep bearing
registration No.GJ-12-BF-5391 came at an excessive
speed and in a rash and negligent manner from the
wrong side and dashed with the scooter driven by the
deceased, thereby causing the vehicular accident. As a
result of the said vehicular accident, the deceased herein
sustained grievous injuries to his body and he succumbed
to the said injuries during treatment.
ii.It is the case of the original claimants/respondent Nos.1 to
4 herein before the learned Tribunal that the deceased
was a retired govt. employee, thereby earning pension
and at the time of the vehicular accident, he was working
as a Revenue Officer with G.M.R.D.S on contractual basis,
thereby earning honorarium, as such, the original
claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein preferred Claim
Petition before the learned Tribunal, thereby seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs.32,50,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, original opponent No.1/respondent No.5
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
herein and original opponent No.2/appellant herein –
Insurance Company filed their respective Written
Statements, thereby denying the averments made in the
Claim Petition, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the
Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and
the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the
respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed
the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.16,81,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the original opponent
No.3/appellant herein – Insurance Company has
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of computation of the monthly income of the
deceased, more particularly as to whether the pensionary
benefits of the deceased ought to be added while
computing the monthly income of the deceased or not;
and also on the ground of interest.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Rathin P Raval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant – Insurance Company vehemently submitted that at the time
of the vehicular accident, the deceased was a person who retired as a
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
Deputy Mamlatdar in the year 2009 upon attaining the age of
superannuation. He further submitted that after retirement, the
deceased was working as a Revenue Officer in G.M.R.D.S on
contractual basis, thereby earning a honorarium of Rs.12,329/- per
month. He further submitted that the deceased was also getting
pension of Rs.16,739/- per month from his parent department. He
contended that the learned Tribunal while determining the income of
the deceased, erroneously added the pension to the monthly income of
the deceased. He contended that the pension ought not to have been
added while determining the monthly income of the deceased, as such,
argued that the learned Tribunal had committed a grave error in
computing the monthly income of the deceased. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Vishavjit Singh Vs. Cholamandalam Ms General
Insurance Company Limited reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
76924 . Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company contended that the
income assessed by the learned Tribunal is required to be reduced.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company further
alleged that the original claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein have
delayed the disposal of the Claim Petition by five years, as such, the
learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded any interest for the period
of five years of delay occurred in disposal of the Claim Petition. As such,
he prayed for reduction of the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal and prayed that the impugned judgment and award be
modified accordingly.
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
6. Per contra, Mr. Hemal Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the original claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
computing the monthly income of the deceased. He submitted that at
the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was receiving pension
of Rs.16,739/- per month from his parent department and apart from
his pension, he was also earning an honorarium of Rs.12,329/- from his
contractual job as Revenue Officer at G.M.R.D.S. He contended that the
learned Tribunal had not committed any error in computing the monthly
income of the deceased by considering both these sources of income.
He further submitted that income from all sources are required to be
considered while calculating the Loss of dependency. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel for the original claimants placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
2009 AIR (SC) 3104 and United India Insurance Company
Limited vs. Indiro Devi & Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SUPREME
COURT 3107 . Learned counsel for the original claimants further
submitted that in the case of Helen C Rebello v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation reported in 1998 (0) AIJEL-SC
11001, Lal Dei vs. Himachal Road Transport reported in 2007 (0)
AIJEL-SC 40120, Hanumantharaju B (Dead) By Lr. vs. M.
Akram Pasha reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75332, Vimal
Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Ors. reported in (2013)
7 SCC 476 and Kirosata Devi vs. Ram Ji Lal reported in 2025 (0)
AIJEL-SC 76676 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that pension
cannot be deducted from the income of the deceased, as it is a
legitimate and continuing component of an individual’s pecuniary
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
benefit, and the same cannot be deducted as a pecuniary advantage
under the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the original claimants
has also placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Division
Bench of this High Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nainaben Wd/o Decd.Bhupendra
Kanaiyalal Shah reported in 2015 (0) AIJEL-HC 235253 and the
judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in
Beniben Wd/o Seniyabhai Alias Senabhai Nalvaya vs.
Umeshbhai Sureshbhai Mohaniya reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC
248835. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned
counsel for the original claimants contended that the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error in adding the pensionary benefits of the
deceased in computing his monthly income.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to
be noted that the appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground of computation of the
monthly income of the deceased, more particularly as to whether the
pensionary benefits of the deceased ought to be added while computing
the monthly income of the deceased or not; and also on the ground of
interest.
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a person who retired as
a Deputy Mamlatdar in the year 2009 upon attaining the age of
superannuation and thereafter, he starting working as a Revenue
Officer with G.M.R.D.S on contractual basis, from where he was getting
an honorarium of Rs.12,329/- per month. The deceased was also
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
getting pension of Rs.16,739/- per month from his parent department.
The learned Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the
deceased, had considered both the honorarium from his contractual job
as well as the pension from his parent department. It has been argued
on behalf of the appellant – Insurance Company that the amount of
pension received by the deceased at the time of the vehicular accident
ought not to have been added while computing the monthly income of
the deceased. The appellant – Insurance Company placed reliance on
the judgment rendered in the case of Vishavjit Singh (supra) ,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 9 has observed as under :-
"9. The issue with regard to the reduction of the
deceased's income from Rs. 22,712/- (Rupees Twenty Two
Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve) per month to Rs.
6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month,
upon scrutiny, appears to be justified. Since, the deceased
was a pensioner and there was no evidence of any
independent source of income, the High Court has rightly
held that the amount being received by the widow as
family pension had to be deducted. Accordingly, we find no
ground to interfere with the income of the deceased as
assessed by the High Court at Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees Six
Thousand Five Hundred) per month."
9. In light of the arguments advanced and the judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company, now the
question arises to whether the pensionary benefit can be added in
computation of monthly income of the deceased or not. In the case of
Helen C Rebello (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered this
issue in detail and in para 36, has observed as under :-
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
“ 36. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident
fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution
made by an employee during the tenure of his service.
Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this
amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is
secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under
the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only
on the happening of the event viz., accident which may not
take place at all. Similarly., family pension is also earned
by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of
his contribution in the service in terms of the service
conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs
receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental
death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life
insurance policy is received either by the insured or the
heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the
insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of
premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till
maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of
death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs,
again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid.
Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on
account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's
death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the
contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any case, bank
balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a
pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of
one's death but all these have no co-relation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on
account of accidental death. How could such an amount
come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When
we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on
similar and same plane having nexus inter so between
them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own
money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation
to the compensation computed as against torfeasor for his
negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the
amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on
account of the injury of death without making any
contribution towards it then how can fruits of an amount
received through contributions of the insured be deducted
out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The amount under this Act, he receives without any
contribution. As we have said the compensation payable
under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount
received under the life insurance policy is contractual.”
10. Further, in the case of Lal Dei (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
in para 4 has observed as under :-
“ 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that while calculating the dependency, the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court
committed an error in deducting the family pension
amount. We find that the submission made by the counsel
for the Appellant is correct. The Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted
the amount of family pension given to the family while
calculating the dependency of the claimants. In Helen C.
Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC this Court has specifically
dealt with this question and said that the family pension is
earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the
form of his contribution in the service in terms of the
service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death.
The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the
accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two
and therefore, the family pension amount paid to the
family cannot be deducted while calculating the
compensation awarded to the claimants. In view of this,
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
the appeal is allowed. The order of deduction of the family
pension is set aside. Accordingly, the Appellants would be
entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,27,000.00 as
compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date
of the filing of the petition.”
11. Furthermore, in the case of Hanumantharaju B (Dead) By Lr.
(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 19, has observed as under :-
“ 19. It is also now well settled that the amount of
compensation is to be calculated on the basis of last
drawn salary of the injured/deceased in respect of salaried
persons and pension and such retirement benefits enjoyed
cannot be deducted for computing the income, these
being statutory rights receivable by the employee or his
legal heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of
accidents, fatal injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is
not directly relatable to the motor accident. Hence,
pensionary benefit could not have been treated as
“pecuniary advantage” liable to be deducted for the
purpose of computation of compensation within the scope
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”
12. In the case of of Kirosata Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
in para 10, has observed as under :-
“ 10. What flows from Hanumantharaju B. (supra) is that
pension being a recurring and assured source of income
arising from the past service of the deceased constitutes
an integral part of his pecuniary benefits. Hence, while
determining the loss of dependency, the pension amount
cannot be excluded or deducted, as it forms a legitimate
and continuing component of the income which the
dependents would have otherwise received, and hence
the pension amount as receivable at the time of the
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
accident, by the deceased has to be considered while
calculating the loss of income and hence in the present
case as the deceased was receiving a pension of
Rs.5,839/- per month, and accordingly the same has to be
added to the salary as received by the deceased from his
private job. As far as the income from the private service
is concerned, the Courts below have made certain
unwarranted deductions in calculating the income. We
therefore fix the income of the deceased from his private
service at Rs.32,673/- per month, and as a result, the
total monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed at
Rs.38,512/- for the computation of compensation…….”
13. Further, in the case of Nainaben Wd/o Decd. Bhupendra
Kanaiyalal Shah (supra), the Division Bench of this High Court in para
7.2, has observed as under : -
“7.2 Now so far as the contention on behalf of the
appellant-Insurance Company in First Appeal
No.5347/2007 that the family pension, which was being
paid to the family members original claimants, more
particularly, widow is required to be deducted is
concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lal Dei and Ors. (Supra), the same
cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that
while computing the dependency of the original claimants,
the family pension amount is not deductable”
14. In case of Beniben Wd/0 Seniyabhai Alias Senabhai
Nalvaya (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Para 3,
has observed as under :-
“ 6.1. I have considered the submissions made by the rival
parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of the
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
Tribunal. I have gone through the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal. From the record, it
transpires that the deceased was aged about 70 years and
was a retired employee of the Railway and was a self
employed and working as Fitter and thereby his income
was Rs.12,871/- pension and Rs.6,000/- as Fitter at the
relevant point of time. Therefore, it should be considered
Rs.18,871/- as monthly income of the deceased.
Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to
Rs.12,871/- per month income. Since the deceased is
aged about 70 years and there are four dependents, 1/4
would proper to be deducted as personal expenses and
therefore, it would come to Rs.4,717/-. Hence, the income
would come to Rs.14,154/- per month and therefore,
yearly, it would come to Rs.1,69,848/- and applying 5
multiplier as per the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as
well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it would come
to Rs.8,49,240/- as future loss, which is required to be
awarded to the claimants.”
15. Now adverting to the present case, the learned Tribunal had
added the pensionary benefit while computing the income of the
deceased. In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Indiro Devi & Ors. (supra), it has been observed that while
computing compensation, income from all sources is required to be
considered. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava reported in 2008 (2) SCC
763 , has held that the term “income” has different connotations for
different purposes, and under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it
must be assigned a “broad meaning”. In the case on hand, the
deceased was having two sources of income, i.e, pensionary benefit as
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
well as monthly honorarium from his contractual job. Thus, both these
sources of income are required to be considered for computing his
monthly income. In the case of Vishavjit Singh (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court has considered the issue as to whether the pensionary
benefit received by the dependents is required to be deducted or not.
The issue was not as to whether the pensionary benefit received by the
deceased is required to added while computing the income. The said
issue directly came before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kirosata
Devi (supra), wherein the deceased being a retired Head Constable of
Border Security Force was earning Rs.32,673/- from his private
employment and was also drawing a pension of Rs.5,839/- per month
from his parent department, the Hon’ble Apex added both those
incomes in computing the monthly income of the deceased and in Para
Nos.9 & 10 of the said judgment has observed as under :-
“9. In the present case, we are inclined to interfere with
the findings of the Courts below in assessing the annual
income of the deceased. The claimant-appellant(s) have
placed on record the salary slips and the pensioner’s
identity card of the deceased, which clearly establish that
he used to earn Rs.32,673/- per month from his private
employment and also drew a monthly pension of
Rs.5,839/- being a retired Head Constable of Border
Security Force. Both the Courts below have concurrently
held that, since the deceased’s wife, Appellant No.1,
continued to receive family pension after his demise, no
loss on account of pension was proved. Be that as it may,
this court in Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram Pasha, has
held that:
“19. It is also now well settled that the amount of
compensation is to be calculated on the basis of last
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
drawn salary of the injured/deceased in respect of
salaried persons and pension and such retirement
benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing
the income, these being statutory rights receivable
by the employee or his legal heirs irrespective of any
unforeseen incident of accidents, fatal injuries etc.
and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable
to the motor accident. Hence, pensionary benefit
could not have been treated as “pecuniary
advantage” liable to be deducted for the purpose of
computation of compensation within the scope of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
For this proposition of law, we may refer to the
decision in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7
SCC 476, wherein this Court, by referring to the
earlier decision in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90, held as follows:—
“19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before
this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC
[(1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197]. In the said
case, this Court held that provident fund, pension,
insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance,
shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary
advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of
one's death but all these have no correlation with
the amount receivable under a statute occasioned
only on account of accidental death. Such an amount
will not come within the periphery of the Motor
Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage”
liable for deduction. The following was the
observation and finding of this Court : (SCC pp. 111-
12, para 35)
“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the
provident fund which is a deferred payment out of
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
the contribution made by an employee during the
tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are
entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the
accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain
to be received, while the amount under the Motor
Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on
the happening of the event viz. accident, which may
not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also
earned by an employee for the benefit of his family
in the form of his contribution in the service in terms
of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after
his death. The heirs receive family pension even
otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation
between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is
received either by the insured or the heirs of the
insured on account of the contract with the insurer,
for which the insured contributes in the form of
premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he
lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In
the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the
sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for
the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable
by the claimant not on account of any accidental
death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is
only a step or contingency in terms of the contract,
to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank
balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a
pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one's death but all these have no co-
relation with the amount receivable under a statute
occasioned only on account of accidental death. How
could such an amount come within the periphery of
the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary
advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the
principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar
and same plane having nexus, inter se, between
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
them and not to which there is no semblance of any
co-relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes
his own money for which he receives the amount
which has no co-relation to the compensation
computed as against the tortfeasor for his
negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid,
the amount receivable as compensation under the
Act is on account of the injury or death without
making any contribution towards it, then how can
the fruits of an amount received through
contributions of the insured be deducted out of the
amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
amount under this Act he receives without any
contribution. As we have said, the compensation
payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory
while the amount receivable under the life insurance
policy is contractual.
Thus, this Court has categorically held that any amount
receivable on account of PF, pension or insurance cannot
be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose
of determining the income or loss of earning for
calculating compensation. This principle was reiterated in
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma
(2016) 9 SCC 627 and National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356.”
10. What flows from Hanumantharaju B. (supra) is that
pension being a recurring and assured source of income
arising from the past service of the deceased constitutes
an integral part of his pecuniary benefits. Hence, while
determining the loss of dependency, the pension amount
cannot be excluded or deducted, as it forms a legitimate
and continuing component of the income which the
dependents would have otherwise received, and hence
the pension amount as receivable at the time of the
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
accident, by the deceased has to be considered while
calculating the loss of income and hence in the present
case as the deceased was receiving a pension of
Rs.5,839/- per month, and accordingly the same has to be
added to the salary as received by the deceased from his
private job. As far as the income from the private service
is concerned, the Courts below have made certain
unwarranted deductions in calculating the income. We
therefore fix the income of the deceased from his private
service at Rs.32,673/- per month, and as a result, the
total monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed at
Rs.38,512/- for the computation of compensation. The
claimant-appellant(s) are also entitled to compensation
under other heads in accordance with the settled
principles of law”
16. Thus it is clear that the case of the original claimants/respondent
Nos.1 to 4 is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the Kirosata Devi (supra). Therefore, in view of the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kirosata Devi
(supra), it is evident that the learned Tribunal has not committed any
error in adding the pensionary benefit of the deceased in computing his
monthly income. Therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the findings
returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of computation of
monthly income of the deceased.
17. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant – Insurance Company that the original claimants are not
entitled to claim interest for a period of five years as the proceedings
were delayed by the claimants is concerned, perusal of the Trial Court
records transpires that the appellant – Insurance Company has equally
contributed in delaying the proceedings, as such, the contention raised
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026
C/FA/1441/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
by the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company on the
point of reduction of interest for the delayed period of five years is not
sustainable and is hence rejected.
18. Thus, after a thorough examination of the case records, this
Court finds no merit in the appellant – Insurance Company’s
submissions. No error or infirmity is evident in the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the captioned appeal
preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company stands dismissed.
19. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to
the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due
verification.
20. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith.
Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal
concerned. No order as to costs.
21. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN...
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 02 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 02 15:04:15 IST 2026