SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Manorma Sinha & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12702 of 2025 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (C) no. 19878/2022)
Decided on : 15-10-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Death in motor accident – Compensation awarded by MACT reduced by High Court from Rs. 88,20,454/- to Rs. 38,15,499/- – High Court while computing compensation, has excluded allowances payable as per last pay slip and gave future prospects at the rate of 40% in place of 50% as was given by Tribunal – Besides, High Court made flat deduction of 30% towards income tax – Deceased was aged 27 years – Multiplier of 17, which has been adopted by High Court is correct – Emoluments and benefits accruing to deceased under various heads for the purposes of computation of loss of income, ought to be included irrespective of whether they are taxable or not – High Court erred in excluding allowances from computation to arrive at multiplicand – Deduction towards income tax should be at such rate which annual income may be subjected to in relevant year – It is not demonstrated that allowances received were exempt from income tax – Deceased was an Engineer employed with a public sector undertaking – There is no material to indicate that his job was not permanent in nature or that he was on a contract for a limited period – Addition for future prospects would have to be at the rate of 50% considering that deceased was aged below 40 years at the time of accident – Total compensation of Rs.74,43,631/- alongwith 6% interest awarded. (Paras 6, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of judgment and order of High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 04.07.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 804 of 2017, whereby compensation awarded by MACT was reduced from Rs. 88,20,454 to Rs. 38,15,499. Question that arises for consideration is whether High Court was justified in reducing compensation payable to appellant.
Findings of Court:
Compensation shall carry interest @ six percent per annum from date of claim petition till date of actual payment.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1[High Court] dated 04.07.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 804 of 2017, whereby the compensation awarded by the XIth Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur2[Tribunal] in Claim Case No. 196 of 2011 was reduced from Rs. 88,20,454 to Rs. 38,15,499.
3. As liability to pay compensation is not in issue, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation payable to the appellant.
4. The operative part of the award passed by the Tribunal including computation of compensation is found in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the award, which are reproduced below:
As per Ext. A & A/1 submitted by O.P. No. 2 Insurer (Insurance Company) and also Ext. 1 salary slip submitted by Claimant the salary of the deceased for the month of Feb., 2011 was as under:
Basic Pay – Rs. 26,420/-
D.A.: 43% - Rs. 11,360/-
Local Allowance:
10% - Rs. 2,642/-
Other allowances:
49% i.e. Rs. 12,945.80
Thus, total salary of deceased comes to Rs. 53,367 per month. Therefore, loss of dependency would come to Rs. 53,367 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 1,15,27,272/-
Out of which ½ his personal expenses would be deducted and then loss of dependency would be Rs. 57,63,636/-. In which 50% future prospects would be added i.e. amount Rs. 28,81,818/- then loss of dependency would be Rs. 86,45,454/-.
11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses.
Thus, total compensation will be Rs. 88,70,454/- Hence, claimants are entitled to get Rs. 88,70,454/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.
12. Perusal of case record it is evident that claimants have already received Rs. 50,000/- as ad-interim compensation U/s. 140 M.V. Act. Hence, this amount would be adjusted from the amount of Rs. 88,70,454/-. Then it comes to Rs. 88,20,454/- as total compensation U/s. 166 M.V. Act. Hence claimants are entitled to get the said amount with interest thereon @ 6% per annum. Therefore, it is,
ORDERED
That the O.P. No. 2 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Muzaffarpur is directed to pay the total compensation amount of Rs. 88,20,454/- to the claimants within two months with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till the date of realization failing which the law will take its own course.”
5. On an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company (the respondent herein), the High Court computed the compensation in the following manner:
| 1. | Monthly basic salary | Rs. 26,420/- |
| 2. | D.A. (43%) | Rs. 11,360/- |
| 3. | Future prospect @ 40% | Rs. 15,892/- |
| Rs. 52,892/- | ||
| 4. | Yearly income (52,892 x 12) | Rs. 6,34,704/- |
| 5. | Less of 30% income tax | -1,90,411/- |
| Rs. 4,44,293/- | ||
| 6. | Less of 50% personal expense (unmarried) | 2,22,146/- |
| Rs. 2,22,147 | ||
| 7. | Multiplier (17 x 2,22147) | Rs. 37,76,499/- |
| 8. | Conventional head (unmarried) | + 39,000 |
| (30,000 + 3,000 each in 2014, 2017 and 2020) | Rs. 38,15,499/- |
6. The
Gestetner Duplicators (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal
Ranjana Prakash & others v. Divisional Manager & another
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors.
Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.