SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.
L & T General Insurance Com. Ltd. – Petitioner 
Versus
Smt. Gomaya And Others – Respondents 
Misc. Appeal No. 801 of 2013, Misc. Appeal No. 820 of 2013
Decided On : 30-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri B.K.Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Smt.Meena Singhal, Advocate

Major children and married daughters of government employees are deemed dependents for Motor Vehicles Act compensation. Permanent employees are entitled to 15% future prospects, and penal interest for payment defaults is not legally permissible.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Quantum of compensation - Death in motor accident - Permanent employees are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 15% (Para 17) - Major children, including married daughters of government servants, are legal representatives and deemed dependents for the purpose of claiming compensation (Paras 14-16) - Family pension received by claimants cannot be deducted from the income of the deceased for calculating compensation (Para 23).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Production of additional evidence in appellate court - Additional evidence cannot be allowed if it could have been produced during the trial and no satisfactory reason for the delay in filing has been provided (Para 9).

(C) Income Tax - Deduction from income for computing compensation - In the absence of cogent evidence of actual tax liability, deductions cannot be made based on tax slabs alone, especially when other deductions might have been available to the deceased (Paras 19-21).

(D) Penal Interest - Retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of compensation is not statutorily envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and is therefore unlawful (Para 24).

Facts of the case:
An accident involving a truck and a bicycle resulted in the death of a permanent government employee. The claims tribunal awarded compensation, which was subsequently challenged through cross-appeals by the insurance company and the claimants. The insurance company challenged the dependency status of major children and the absence of tax deductions, while the claimants sought enhancement based on future prospects and loss of consortium.

Findings of Court:
The court found that married daughters of government servants are deemed dependents. Future prospects of 15% were applicable due to the permanent nature of the employment. Requests for tax deductions were rejected due to lack of concrete evidence of liability. The court also ruled that penal interest for payment defaults is not lawful. The total compensation was increased from Rs. 21,68,432/- to Rs. 26,60,644/-.

Issues: 1. Whether major/married children of a government servant can be considered dependents for compensation? 2. Whether additional evidence can be admitted under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when not produced during the trial? 3. Whether tax deductions should be made from the deceased's income in the absence of evidence of actual tax paid? 4. Whether the imposition of penal interest for delay in payment of compensation is permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act?

Ratio Decidendi: Major children of government employees are deemed dependents and legal representatives entitled to compensation. Additional evidence in the appellate court requires a showing of due diligence or substantial cause. Tax deductions require proof of actual liability. The Motor Vehicles Act does not empower Tribunals to impose penal interest for payment defaults.

Result: Appeal filed by Insurance Company dismissed and appeal filed by the claimants allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • motor vehicle law
    • compensation
      • calculation of compensation
        • dependency (Para 14, 16, 23)
        • future prospects (Para 17)
        • multiplier (Para 17)
        • deductions (Para 19, 20)
        • heads of compensation
      • interest and penal interest (Para 24)
    • evidence
      • additional evidence on appeal (Para 7, 8, 9)

Table of Contents

1. Motor accident claim — Death of a constable in a road accident — Claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 1 , 3 )

2. Dispute over dependency of major/married children — Deduction for income tax — Application of multiplier — Future prospects — Penal interest. (Para 5 )

3. Dismissed insurance company's appeal — Allowed claimant's appeal — Enhanced compensation awarded — Penal interest direction set aside. (Para 26 )

4. Can a married daughter be deemed a dependent of her deceased father for claiming motor accident compensation?

Yes, a married daughter is a legal representative and can be deemed dependent on her deceased father, especially if no rebuttal evidence shows she was not dependent at the time of the accident. (Para 14 , 16 )

5. Should income tax and professional tax be deducted from the deceased's income when the salary certificate shows no such deduction and no evidence of tax liability is adduced?

No, without cogent evidence that the deceased was liable to pay such taxes, the court cannot deduct any amount for income tax or professional tax from the income. (Para 19 , 20 )

6. Is a direction for penal interest on delayed payment of compensation valid under the Motor Vehicles Act?

No, the Tribunal cannot impose penal interest for default in payment as it is not statutorily envisaged; only the awarded rate of interest is applicable until payment. (Para 24 )

7. What is the correct approach for calculating future prospects when the deceased was in permanent service?

For a person in permanent service, future prospects of 15% should be added to the income, as per the principles of standardization laid down in Pranay Sethi. (Para 17 , 18 )

8. Can an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC be allowed if the document could have been filed earlier before the Tribunal?

No, if the document could have been produced earlier before the Tribunal and no satisfactory reason for the delay is shown, the application for additional evidence must be dismissed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )

ORDER :

This order shall govern disposal of both these Misc. Appeals as they arise out of common award dated 30.04.2013 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No.8/2012; whereby, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.21,68,432/- for the death of Santlal Gurung in a road accident.

2 . M.A.No.801/2013 has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company (hereinafter for convenience shall be referred as “Insurance Company”); whereas, M.A.No.820/2013 been filed by the appellants/claimants (hereinafter for convenience shall be referred as “claimants”).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.11.2011 after duty deceased Santlal, who was posted as Constable in B.S.F. Department, Tekanpur, was going to his home on bicycle in slow speed, at that juncture, near Peer Baba Dargah, Tekanpur, respondent- Hemsingh Kadera, driver of truck No.MP09/H.G. 3378 came from the side of Dabra by driving it rashly and negligently and dashed the bicycle of Santlal, due to which he died on the spot.

4 . Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that claimants No.2 & 3 were major and were not supposed to be dependents upon the income of the deceased and in these circumstances, the dependency ought not to have been assessed as 3/4th of the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased grossly erred in not making any deductions under Income Tax, Service Tax and Professional Tax which the deceased was under obligation to pay. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier on the entire period on uniform basis, whereas the deceased was in service of Para Military Forces and as such was to retire at the age of 58 years. After retirement the pension to be received by the deceased was certainly 50% of his income/pay which he was receiving at the time of his death. Therefore, in this circumstances, learned Tribunal ought to have assessed dependency on his income for next five years and thereafter on his pension for remaining four years. The learned Tribunal has also erred in directing penal interest in default of payment of amount of compensation within two months from retrospective effect which is not envisaged in the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(i) Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738.

(ii) Deep Shikha & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. decided on 13.05.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.22265-22266 of 2018

(iii) Fakir Chand Taneja and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2022(4) T.A.C. 440(SC).

(iv) Sebastiani Lakra & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 465

(v) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Keshav Bahadur and others , 2004 ACJ 648

(vi) Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corpn. & Anr., 2009(2) T.A.C. 677 (SC)

(vii) National Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., MACD 2017(4) (SC) 137

(viii) Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mamta & Ors. decided on 25.08.2023 in M.A.No.2008/2023.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that learned Tribunal has not considered the increment and DA which would be added to the income of the deceased every year. As per settled law, on these two counts 10% of the income is to be added in the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has considered dependency of the claimants as 3/4 while the claimants were totally dependent on the income of the deceased, therefore, the dependency ought to be considered as 4/5. Compensation under the head of loss of consortium has not been granted to all the claimants. The compensation qua funeral expenses and estate of loss is also on lower side. Rate of interest is also on lower side. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the compensation by Rs.5,00,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top