SMT. SAJIDA vs SHRI RAKESH KUMAR

UKHC010002382012

2026:UHC:7985

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 514 of 2012
02 September, 2026

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

--Appellant

Versus

1: Smt. Sajida
2: Kumari Aasafa
3: Kumari Kaafiya
4: Kumari Aafreen
5: Kumari Fareen
6: Master Ubaid Rahman
7: Shri Rakesh Kumar
8: Shri Gulfaam
9: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company

--Respondents
With

Appeal From Order No. 426 of 2012



Smt. Sajida and Others


--Appellants

Versus

Shri Rakesh Kumar and Others
--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate
for the appellant/Insurance Company in AO No. 514 of 2012.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondents-claimants.
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocate for ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’) has been preferred by the
appellant/Insurance Company assailing the judgment
1

UKHC010002382012

2026:UHC:7985
and award dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned
M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/FTC-1st, Dehradun
in M.A.C.P. No. 339 of 2026, Smt. Sajida and Others
Vs. Rakesh Kumar and Others, whereby the Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.89,06,596/- in favour of the
claimants.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same
accident and challenge different aspects of the same
judgment and award, they are being decided by this
common judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that on
09.10.2026 at about 02:30 P.M., when Lukman
(deceased) reached at Thana Biharigarh, District
Saharanpur, which is one kilometer before Lalpul from
his Tavera Car having registration no. UA-07L-5571, a
truck bearing registration no. HR583520, being driven
on a wrong side, hit Tavera Car of Lukman (deceased),
due to which, Lukman (deceased) suffered injuries and
he was taken to Indiresh Hospital, Dehradun, whereby,
during his treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.
Consequent to his demise, the claimants filed a petition
seeking compensation of Rs.90,00,000/-.
4. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed a
manifest error as the Tribunal without considering the
facts and evidence of the case has passed the
impugned award; the primary challenge raised by the
appellant/Insurance Company is directed against the
methodology and quantum of compensation evaluated
by the learned Tribunal. It is the case of the
2

UKHC010002382012

2026:UHC:7985
appellant/Insurance Company that admittedly the
income of the deceased mentioned in the claim petition
and also on the basis of the ITRs filed by the claimants,
was Rs. 60,000/- per month, but, the MACT has taken
the income of the deceased on the higher side,
therefore, the impugned award is erroneous and liable
to be set-aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for
the claimants vehemently argued that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is
well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. He
submitted that the learned Tribunal had correctly
assessed the income of the deceased based on the
evidence adduced on record, including the Income Tax
Returns. It was further contended that the
compensation awarded is just, fair, and reasonable,
keeping in view the large family of six dependents left
behind by the deceased. He, therefore, prayed for the
dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
and sought enhancement of the compensation in the
connected cross-appeal filed by the claimants being AO
No. 426 of 2012.
6. Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli for the Insurance Company,
and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the
claimants and perused the calculations filed by both
sides.
7. The primary grievance of the appellant centers
around the assessment of the deceased's annual
income and the failure of the Tribunal to properly
deduct income tax and personal expenses in line with
3

UKHC010002382012

2026:UHC:7985
settled legal precedents. To arrive at a just and fair
compensation, this Court finds it imperative to
reassess the financial dependencies based on the
Income Tax Returns (ITRs) submitted by the Lukman
(deceased) prior to his demise.
8. Assessment of Income: As per the record, the
deceased's income for the Assessment Year 2005-2006
stood at Rs. 7,19,273/-, and for the Assessment Year
2006-2007, it was recorded at Rs. 10,95,457/-. Taking
the average of these two consecutive assessment years
yields a gross annual income of Rs. 9,07,365/-.
9. Deduction of Income Tax: The learned Tribunal
erred in overlooking the mandatory tax liability on the
gross assessed income. Applying the relevant slab rates
applicable at the time, a total tax deduction of
Rs.1,52,209/- is liable to be deducted (comprising Nil
tax up to Rs.2,00,000/-, 10% on the slab up to Rs.
5,00,000/-, and 30% on the remaining balance up to
Rs.9,07,365/-). Consequently, the actual net annual
income of the deceased is quantified at Rs.7,55,156/-.
10. Deduction for Personal and Living Expenses:
Since the deceased has left behind six dependent
claimants (Smt. Sajida and 5 children), the statutory
deduction towards personal and living expenses must
be restricted to 1/4th (one-fourth) of the net income, as
mandated by the landmark judgment in
Sarla Verma
th
v. Delhi Transport Corporation . Deducting 1/4 of
the net income (Rs.7,55,156/-) comes to Rs.1,88,789/-,
thus, the annual loss of dependency to the family is
assessed at Rs.5,66,367/-.
11. Application of Multiplier (for total loss of
4

UKHC010002382012

2026:UHC:7985
dependency): Taking into account the age of the
deceased, a multiplier of 14 is appropriate and legally
sound as per the guidelines given in the case of Sarla
Verma ( supra ). Thus, the total loss of dependency is
calculated as Rs. 5,66,367/- × 14, which amounts to
Rs. 79,29,138/-.
12. Conventional Heads: In addition to the loss of
dependency, the claimants are entitled to consortium of
Rs.40,000/- each i.e. 40,000 x 6 = 2,40,000/-, funeral
expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and loss of estate
to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. total conventional head
(2,40,000/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/-) comes to
Rs.2,70,000/-.
13. Thus, in view of the calculation framework
detailed above, the total just compensation payable to
the respondents/claimants is rounded out to
Rs.81,99,138/- (Rupees Eighty-One Lakhs, Ninety-Nine
Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-Eight only).
14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 28.05.2012
passed by the learned M.A.C.T./Additional District
Judge/FTC-1st, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 339 of 2026
is hereby modified to the extent that the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from
Rs. 89,06,596/- to Rs. 81,99,138/-.
15. Concurrently, the connected cross-appeal (A.O.
No. 426 of 2012) filed by the claimants for the
enhancement of compensation is disposed off in view of
the reasons given above.
5

UKHC010002382012

2026:UHC:7985
16. The modified compensation amount of
Rs.81,99,138/- shall carry an interest rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until
actual realization.
17. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the balance or modified amount with the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today, after
adjusting any amount already deposited. The
distribution/disbursement of the awarded amount
among the claimants shall follow the proportion and
terms specified by the learned Tribunal in its original
order.
18. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the
appellant at the time of filing this appeal shall be
remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for
adjustment/payment to the claimants. No order as to
costs.



(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
02.09.2026
Ujjwal

6