SMT. ROSHNI DEVI vs THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550

Judgment Reserved on:01.10.2026
Judgment Delivered on:16.10.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.248 OF 2012

Smt. Roshni Devi and Others ...Appellants.

Versus

The New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Respondents.


Counsel for the appellants : Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent
: Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel.
no.1-Insurance Company

( per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. )
JUDGMENT:

The present appeal from order under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the
judgment and award dated 22.10.2011 passed by the
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT)/ District Judge, Pauri
in MACP No.54 of 2008, “Smt. Roshni Devi and Others Vs.
Ramswaroop Agarwal and Another” .
2. The appellants have prayed for enhancement of
the compensation awarded by the MACT. During the
pendency of this appeal, appellant no.4, who is father of
Shri Jayanand (deceased) died on 13.02.2013. Appellant
no.1 is the wife; appellant no.2 and 3 are the children and
appellant no.5 is the mother of the deceased.
3. The claimants have preferred the claim petition
1

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
before the MACT, Pauri Garhwal, claiming compensation of
₹22,50,000/- on account of death of Shir Jayanand in an
accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of
Vehicle No.UP 06 4157.
4. As per the case of the claimants on 27.06.2008,
the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the bus and
due to the rash and negligent driving, the vehicle fell into a
ditch in village Ameli near Data-pul. In the said accident,
the driver of the bus alongwith 8 to 10 persons died. The
deceased was aged 42 years and was working as Raj Mistry
(Skilled Mason) and was stated to be earning ₹10,000/-
per month. The owner of the bus was arrayed as
respondent no.1 in the claim petition and the New India
Insurance Company Limited was arrayed as respondent
no.2.
5. The owner of the vehicle filed his written
statement and denied the fact that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving. He, however,
submitted that, if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving, in
the said event the responsibility to pay compensation
would be of the Insurance Company as the offending
vehicle was ensured; the driver was having a valid license;
2

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
all papers of the offending vehicles were valid and
complete. Thus, the owner denied its liability to pay any
compensation to the claimants.
6. The Insurance Company filed its written
statement and pleaded that, at the time of accident, the
deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and its
driver was not having the valid and effective driving
license; that the vehicle was not having the requisite,
effective and valid documents; that the vehicle was being
plied in contravention to the Insurance Policy, as such, the
claimants were not entitled for any compensation.
7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,
framed the following issues:
“(1) Whether deceased Jayanand died in an accident on
27-6-2008 at 8:30 A.M. in Sakinkhet-Satpuli Motor road
near village Ameli due to the rash and negligent driving of
bus No. U.P.06-4157 by its driver?
(2) Whether all the documents of the vehicle in question
including driving licence are not valid and effective at the
time of accident?
(3) Whether the said vehicle was being plied against the
terms and conditions of the policy and permit at the time
of accident?
(4) To what amount of compensation, if any, the
claimants are entitled and from whom?”

8. The claimants, in support of their claims, filed
affidavit of appellant no.2 (Anish) as APW1 and affidavit of
3

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
Vinita Devi as APW2. The claimants also filed documentary
evidence. The Insurance Company neither filed any oral nor
documentary evidence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the
deceased to be ₹3,000/- per month and discarded the
contention of the claimants that deceased was earning
₹10,000/- per month working as a skilled labour (Mason).
10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that a certificate (paper no.31/c) was issued by the Gram
Pradhan disclosing that the deceased was working as a
skilled labour and the appellant no.2 deposed on oath that
the deceased was earning ₹10,000/- per month. He
contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Suresh Jatav Vs. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. 2025 (4)
ACC 203 has held that a skilled labour in the year 2002
can be said to be earning ₹6,000/- per month, as such,
even the income of ₹10,000/- per month claimed in the
year 2008 cannot be said to be exorbitant.
11. He further submits that no amount towards
future prospects and loss of consortium has been awarded
and the claimants were entitled for ₹40,000/- per claimants
towards loss of consortium.
4

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
12. He further submits that the claimants were
entitled for compensation under the head loss of estate and
funeral expenses. A computation chart has been filed
wherein the appellants have claimed ₹17,65,000/- as
compensation along with interest.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1/
insurance company contended that the claimants were not
able to prove the income, as such, the Tribunal was
justified in considering the monthly income to be ₹3,000/-
per month and the amount awarded as compensation to
the claimants does not warrant any enhancement.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
15. The learned Tribunal decided issue no.1 in favour
of the claimants and held that the eye-witness - Vinita Devi
(APW2) supported the averments of the claim petition.
16. Further, as per the documentary evidence (Paper
No.28c/1 to 28c/8), it was proved that the Insurance
Company had settled the claim petition of the deceased
driver in terms of the compromise and the awarded amount
was paid by the Insurance Company. As the claim petition
filed by the claimants related to the same accident and in
5

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
the other claim petition, it was held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and the Insurance Company had paid compensation
to the legal heirs of the deceased driver, as such, it was
proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle No.UP 06 4157.
17. Issue no.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the
claimants on the basis of the Investigator’s report (paper
no.37c/1 to 37/6), according to which, all papers of the
offending vehicle were found to be valid. The Insurance
Company has not put to challenge the order passed by the
learned MACT and the finding recorded with regard to issue
no.1 to 3 have become final.
18. This Court has also considered the records and is
in agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal
with regard to issue no.1 to 3. This Court does not find any
illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by the
learned Tribunal with regard to said issue no.1 to 3.
19. With regard to issue no.4, which relates to as to
what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are
entitled to receive and from whom, this Court is of the view
that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding just
compensation to the claimants. The son of the deceased
6

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
examined himself as APW1 and his wife examined herself
as APW2 and deposed that the deceased was working as a
skilled labour (Mason) and was constructing house on
contract basis.
20. In the cross-examination also, APW1 contended
that the deceased was having various construction work
pending. Learned Tribunal discarded the said evidence
solely on the ground that there was no documentary proof
submitted by the claimants with regard to the income. The
learned Tribunal considered the income of deceased to be
₹3,000/- per month and awarded a compensation of
₹3,98,000/- to the appellants.
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa
Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236 in the case of a
deceased, who was working as a coolie and claiming
income of ₹4,500/- per month, observed that a person
working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any
documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos.13, 14 and 15 has
held as under:-
“ 13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a
coolie and was earning Rs 4500 per month at the time of
the accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a
7

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
sum of Rs 3000 only on the assumption that the wages of
a labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year
2004, was Rs 100 per day. This assumption in our view
has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though the Insurance
Company was served, it did not choose to appear before
the court nor did it repudiate the claim of the claimant.
Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have
reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the
monthly earning to be a sum of Rs 3000 per month.
Secondly, the appellant was working as a coolie and
therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any
documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the
absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made
by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present
case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the
claimant.
14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all
circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of
the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It
depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the
claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is
contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept
the claim and may proceed to determine the possible
income by resorting to some guesswork, which may
include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant
point of time.
15. In the present case, the appellant was working as
a coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the
wage of a labourer was between Rs 100 to Rs 150 per
day or Rs 4500 per month. In our view, the claim was
honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason
for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of
the appellant from Rs 4500 to Rs 3000 per month. We,
therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning
was Rs 4500.”

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Suresh Jatav Vs. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. 2025 INSC
821 in para 6 held that the claim set up by the legal heirs
of the deceased who was working as a skilled labour
(Mason) in the year 2008 said to be earning ₹6,000/- per
month was not exorbitant and the said claim was accepted.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment took into
consideration the observation made in the case of
8

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
Ramachandrappa ( supra ) wherein income of a Coolie in
the year 2004 assessed as ₹4,500/- per month was found
to be appropriate.
23. Thus, the income of the deceased can be
assessed as ₹6,000/- per month in view of the fact that he
was working as a skilled labour (Mason). The learned
Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 14 and the
th
deduction of 1/4 towards the personal expenses is also in
accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has awarded
₹20,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and
has not awarded any amount towards future prospect and
consortium.
24. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time
of accident was 42 years as such in view of para 59.4 of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi
2017 (16) SCC 680 the deceased was entitled for 25%
towards future prospects. Para 59.4 of the judgment reads
as under:
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
“
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the income
minus the tax component.”
9

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550

25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company ( Supra ) considered the term
‘consortium’ and held in paragraph nos.35 to 45 as
hereunder:
“35. The word “consortium” has been defined in
Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edn. The Black's Law
Dictionary also, simultaneously, notices the filial
consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium
in the following manner:
“Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A
spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including
companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial
support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a
claim for loss of consortium.
• Filial consortium A child's society, affection,
and companionship given to a parent.
• Parental consortium A parent's society,
affection and companionship given to a child.
• Spousal consortium A spouse's society,
affection and companionship given to the other
spouse.”

36. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. [Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC
130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153]
as well as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 :
2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] , the three-Judge Bench laid
down that the consortium is not limited to spousal
consortium and it also includes parental consortium as
well as filial consortium. In para 87 of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC
410] , “consortium” to all the three claimants was thus
awarded. Para 87 is quoted below:
“87. Insofar as the conventional heads are
concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a
widow and three children as his dependants. On the
basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680
: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]
and Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , the following
amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
(i) Loss of estate : Rs 15,000
10

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
(ii) Loss of consortium:
(a) Spousal consortium : Rs 40,000
(b) Parental consortium : 40,000 × 3 = Rs
1,20,000
(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000”

37. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ)
248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] has only referred to
spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred
to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , hence, there is no
justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial
consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri)
205] has referred to amount of Rs 40,000 to the “loss of
consortium” but the Constitution Bench had not
addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs
40,000 is only payable as spousal consortium. The
judgment of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ)
248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] cannot be read to mean
that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is
payable only to the wife.

38. The three-Judge Bench in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC
410] has categorically laid down that apart from spousal
consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We
feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of the three-
Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of
consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not
sustainable.

39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments
[Somwati v. Dharmendra Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine All
,
3897] [Sangita Devi v. New India Assurance Ltd., 2019
,
SCC OnLine Del 10877] [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
,
Azmati Khatoon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10530]
[Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
,
Umarani, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 29630] [Pinki v. Rajeev,
,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11882] [Nanak Chand v. New
,
India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 62]
[Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court awarding consortium
to each of the claimants in accordance with law which
does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We,
however, accept the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant that there is no justification for award of
compensation under separate head “loss of love and
11

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
affection”. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to
be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under
the head “loss of love and affection”.

40. We may also notice the three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellant i.e. Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2
SCC (Cri) 905] The counsel for the appellant submits that
this Court has granted only Rs 40,000 towards “loss of
consortium” which is an indication that “consortium”
cannot be granted to children. In the above case, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs 20,000 to the
widow towards loss of consortium and Rs 10,000 to the
minor daughter towards “loss of love and affection”. The
High Court has reduced [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 970] the amount of
consortium from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000. Para 16 of the
judgment is to the following effect : (Sangita Arya case
[Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5
SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)
905] , SCC p. 330, para 10)
“10. The consortium payable to the widow was
reduced [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita
Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 970] by the High Court
from Rs 20,000 (as awarded by MACT) to Rs 10,000;
the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection
to the minor daughters was reduced from Rs 10,000 to
Rs 5000. However, the amount of Rs 5000 awarded by
MACT towards funeral expenses was maintained.”

41. This Court in the above case confined its
consideration towards the income of the deceased and
there was neither any claim nor any consideration that
the consortium should have been paid to other legal heirs
also. There being no claim for payment of consortium to
other legal heirs, this Court awarded Rs 40,000 towards
consortium. No such ratio can be deciphered from the
above judgment that this Court held that consortium is
only payable as a spousal consortium and consortium is
not payable to children and parents.

42. It is relevant to notice the judgment of this
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 :
2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] which was delivered shortly
after the above three-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta
Arya [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020)
5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)
905] specifically laid down that both spousal and parental
consortium are payable which judgment we have already
noticed above.

43. We may also notice one more three-Judge
12

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
Bench judgment of this Court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [M.H. Uma Maheshwari v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 400 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 274 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 744]
decided on 12-6-2020. In the above case, the Tribunal
had granted the amount of rupees one lakh towards loss
of consortium to the wife and rupees three lakhs for all
the appellants towards loss of love and affection. The
High Court in the above case had reduced the amount of
compensation in the appeal filed by the insurance
company. The High Court held [United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. M.H. Uma Maheshwari, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6258]
that by awarding the amount of rupees one lakh towards
loss of consortium to the wife, the Tribunal had
committed error while awarding rupees one lakh to the
first appellant towards the head of “loss of love and
affection”. Allowing the appeal filed by the claimant, this
Court maintained the order of MACT.

44. In the above judgment although rendered by
the three-Judge Bench, there was no challenge to award
of compensation of rupees one lakh towards the
consortium and rupees three lakhs towards the loss of
love and affection. The appeal was filed only by the
claimants and not by the insurance company. The Court
did not pronounce on the correctness of the amount
awarded under the head “loss of love and affection.

45. We may also notice the additional submission
advanced in Civil Appeal No. 3099 of 2020 [arising out of
SLP (C) No. 8250 of 2020], Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rinku Devi & Others. As noted above, we have taken the
view that the order [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku
Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court
awarding compensation towards “loss of love and
affection” @ Rs 50,000 to each of the claimants is
unjustified which is being set aside in this appeal. We,
further, in the above appeal also set aside the directions
of the High Court in para 9 by which statutory amount
along with interest accrued thereon was directed to be
ASRA
deposited in A fund.”

26. The said view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Neelam and Others Vs. Ganga
Singh and Others 2026 SCC OnLine SC 888 . Thus, the
claimants are entitled for ₹40,000/- towards loss of
consortium and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and
13

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
funeral expenses.
27. The claimants are, as such, entitled for the
following compensation under the different heads:
S.No. Compensation
Heads
Amount Awarded
1. Monthly Income ₹6,000/-
2. Yearly Income ₹72,000/-
3. Future Prospects @
25%
72,000/- + 18,000 = ₹90,000/-
4. Multiplier of 14 ₹90,000 x 14 = ₹12,60,000/-
th
»
5. Deductions 1/4 ₹12,60,000/- 1/4 = ₹3,15,000,
₹12,60,000 – ₹3,15,000 =
₹9,45,000/-
6. Loss of Consortium 40,000 x 4 = ₹1,60,000
7. Funeral Expenses ₹15,000/-
8. Loss of Estate ₹15,000/-
9. Total Compensation 9,45,000 + 1,60,000 + 15,000 +
15,000 = ₹11,35,000/-

28. The above amount of compensation shall be paid
to the appellants along with interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of filing of claim petition after deducting the
amount what has already been paid within a period of two
months from today. Appellant no.1 (wife of the deceased)
would be entitled to 50% of the awarded compensation
with interest. Appellant nos.2 and 3 (children of the
deceased) would be entitled to 25% of the amount of
compensation with interest and appellant nos.5 (mother of
the deceased) shall be entitled to the remaining 25% of the
amount of compensation with interest.
14

UKHC010004822012

2026:UHC:9550
29. With the above observations, the appeal from
order is disposed of.
30. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.


____________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt:16.10.2026
Sukhbant

15