RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs SMT. GEETA DEVI

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010198512018

2026:UHC:8152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 489 of 2018

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
... Appellant.


Versus

Smt. Geeta Devi and others
… Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Harshit Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.C.S. Rawat,
learned counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/insurance company against the judgment and
award dated 29.09.2018, passed by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / IVth Additional District
Judge, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.252 of 2015, Smt. Geeta Devi and others vs.
Bhupendra Singh and others, whereby an award of
Rs.28,33,850/- with interest @ 6% as compensation has
been awarded against the Insurance Company.
2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the
present appeal are as follows:
The claim petition was filed on account of the
death of Smt. Poonam Devi in a motor vehicle
accident. As per the Claim Petition, on 05.12.2015,
the claimants’ mother was standing on the left-hand
side of the road when at 12:30 hours, a car bearing
no.D.L.4C-A.D./7643 was being driven towards
Bhaniyawala by its driver rashly and negligently,
1

UKHC010198512018

2026:UHC:8152
and it hit the deceased, wherein she sustained
grievous injuries and on account of the said
injuries, she died.
The defendants contested the claim petition by
filing their written statement and refuted the claim
petition averments.
By virtue of the impugned judgment and
award dated 29.09.2018, the claim petition was
allowed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal.
On issue nos. 1 and 2, the learned Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident occurred
on 05.12.2015 on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car bearing number
D.L.4C-A.D./7643, due to which the deceased
sustained injuries and consequently died. The
deceased had no contributory negligence on her
part in the said accident.
On issue no. 3, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the car was duly insured with
Reliance General Insurance Company and the driver
was having a valid driving license, RC, and valid
and effective insurance documents.
On issue no. 4 regarding compensation, the
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that from
the pay slip of the deceased Smt. Poonam Devi, the
monthly salary is assessed at ₹ 19,850/- based on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121. The annual income was assessed at
2

UKHC010198512018

2026:UHC:8152
₹ 1,58,808/-, and on the basis of the judgment in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the learned
Tribunal granted addition on annual income at the
rate of 30% and after granting compensation under
other heads, the total compensation was worked out
to be ₹ 28,33,850/-.
3. Assailing the aforesaid impugned judgment
and award, Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that the income of the deceased
has not been properly determined by the learned
Tribunal, and the addition of 30% towards future
prospects has been wrongly granted by the learned
Tribunal. Thus, he would submit that on account of the
aforesaid facts, the resultant increase in the amount of
compensation deserves redetermination.
4. Per contra, Mr. Harshit Bisht, learned counsel
for the claimants/respondents would draw the attention
of the Court to paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment,
and he would submit that based on the salary
documents of the deceased, due deductions have been
made by the learned Tribunal and only thereafter it has
come to a conclusion that the deceased would be having
₹
a monthly income of 19,850 per month.
5. Regarding the second contention as raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for
the claimants/respondents would submit that in view of
paragraph 59.3 in the case of National Insurance
reported
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
in , since the deceased was aged 49
(2017) 16 SCC 680
years 2 months on the date of the accident, the addition
towards the income for future prospects should be 30%.
For ready reference paragraph no. 59.3 is extracted
3

UKHC010198512018

2026:UHC:8152
hereunder for ready reference.
“59.3. While determining the income, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the income
of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and
was below the age of 40 years, should be
made. The addition should be 30%, if the age
of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In
case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual
salary should be read as actual salary less
tax.”

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the record, the following points
for determination arise for consideration of this Court:
i. Whether the income of the deceased has not
been properly determined as has been
contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant?
ii. Whether the learned Tribunal committed an
error by granting an addition of 30% on the
income of the deceased towards future
prospects?
7. On the point for determination no.1, though
learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
income has not been properly determined, however, a
bare perusal of paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment
reveals that based on the salary documents and after
making due deductions, the learned Tribunal came to the
₹
figure of 19,850/- as the monthly income of the
deceased. The said figure of ₹ 19,850/- is based on
documentary evidence and there is nothing to suggest
that any other view can be taken. Hence, point for
determination no. 1 deserves to be answered against the
appellant.
4

UKHC010198512018

2026:UHC:8152
8. On the point for determination no. 2, the issue
regarding the addition of 30% on account of future
prospects on the income of the deceased is based on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra). The said addition is made in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra) in paragraph 59.3 thereof. The position of
law is well settled in the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), and there is no
scope for interference on this aspect. Therefore, point for
determination no. 2 also deserves to be answered against
the appellant.
9. Since both the points for determination have
been answered against the appellant, hence, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed, and it is dismissed accordingly.
10. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance
amount, after deducting the amount already deposited,
and transfer it to the Tribunal concerned within a period
of 45 days.
11. The Registry is also directed to transmit the
statutory deposit of ₹ 25,000/- to the Tribunal concerned
forthwith.
12. The original record be transmitted to the
Tribunal concerned.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
10.09.2026
Shiv/




5