Pension received by a deceased retiree must be included when computing monthly income for loss of dependency.

In brief

The question

1. Whether pensionary benefits of a deceased individual should be included or excluded while computing the monthly income for the purpose of determining loss of dependency

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s award. It held that pensionary benefits must be included in the computation of a deceased person's monthly income for motor accident claims

It also directed

The Court ordered the disbursement of the awarded amount (₹16,81,000/- with 9% interest) to the claimants

01Facts

On October 14, 2011, Mr. Narendrabhai (the deceased), a retired Deputy Mamlatdar, was riding a scooter when he was struck by a Xylo Jeep driven in a rash and negligent manner

p. 2

The deceased succumbed to his injuries during treatment. At the time of the accident, he was receiving a pension of ₹16,739/- per month and earning a monthly honorarium of ₹12,329/- from a post-retirement contractual job as a Revenue Officer

pp. 2, 6-7

The claimants filed for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded ₹16,81,000/- with 9% interest, including both the honorarium and the pension in the calculation of "monthly income"

p. 1, 7

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that pensionary benefits should be excluded from income and that interest should be reduced due to a five-year delay in proceedings

pp. 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether pensionary benefits of a deceased individual should be included or excluded while computing the monthly income for the purpose of determining loss of dependency

p. 3, 7

ii.2. Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced on the ground of delay in the disposal of the Claim Petition

p. 4, 17

03Law Applied

The court emphasized that "income" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be assigned a "broad meaning"

p. 12, citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava

The principle that pension and other terminal benefits (PF, Life Insurance) are "pecuniary advantages" earned through past service/contributions and have no correlation with the statutory compensation arising from a motor accident; therefore, they cannot be deducted or excluded from income

p. 8, citing Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC · p. 9, citing Lal Dei v. Himachal Road Transport

The court applied the recent holding from Kirosata Devi v. Ram Ji Lal [2025] and Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram Pasha [2025], which established that pension is a recurring, assured source of income and must be added to any salary from private/contractual employment to refix the total monthly income

pp. 10, 13-16

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 168

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Vishavjit Singh v. Cholamandalam MS, noting that said case addressed the deduction of family pension received by heirs, rather than the addition of the deceased’s own pension to his earnings

p. 13

Applying Kirosata Devi, the Court reasoned that since pension is a legitimate and continuing component of an individual's pecuniary benefit arising from past service, it constitutes an integral part of the income the dependents would have otherwise received

p. 16

On the issue of interest, the Court reviewed the Trial Court records and found that the Insurance Company had equally contributed to the five-year delay, thus forfeiting their right to claim a reduction in interest

pp. 17-18