IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 305 of 2024 Date of decision: 27^th June, 2025 New India Assurance Company …Appellant Versus Sultan Singh & others o …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate for respondents C No.1(a) and 2.

Ms. Shrutika Advocate vice Mr. Dheeraj K.

Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Respondent No.4 is already ex-parte vide g order dated 28.4.2025.

iVivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short the ‘MV Act’) against Award dated 19.7.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalagarh, District Solan (in short ‘the MACT’) in MACT Case No. 29 of 2019 titled Pooja and others vs. Devinder Singh and others, whereby the MACT has awarded compensation amounting to Rs.43,55,028/- along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization in favour of legal heirs mentioned in legal heirs certificate Ext.C-1 of deceased Satinder Singh, who had died in motor accident on 3.5.2018 at about 8.43 AM at Billanwali Labana, neaPr Shiv Mandir, Baddi, District Solan on hitting by the truck when he was moving on road.

2 Learned counsel for the appellant-Ins urance Company has submitted that present appeal is confined oonly to the rate of interest awarded by the MACT and appreciation of evidence related to the income of deceased Satinder Singh as MACT has misread and misinterpreted the salary certificate of deceased Satinder Singh placed on record as Ext.PW1/Bo wherein total earning of deceased has been reflected as Rs.2C2,400/- which includes not only other specific components of salary but also Rs.2400/- in the head of ‘Others’.

3 It has been submitted that though, all allowances like HRS, Conveyance allowance, Special allowance, Education allowance, Medical iallowance, LTA as well as allowances like telephone, petrol, medical bills and overtime have been reflected in the salary slip specifically, showing that deceased was earning Rs.7200/- as basic, Rs.2000/- as HRS and Rs.10,800/- as Special allowance and nothing against other allowances but with earning of Rs.2400/- against the head of ‘Others’.

4 It has been submitted that when all allowances, as referred supra, were reflected in the salary slip separately then for what purpose amount of Rs.2400/- has been paid as ‘Other’ income in salary certificate of deceased Satinder Singh, is not clarified and thus, the income which may be a stray income but not regular income of Satinder Singh cannot be taken into consideration as income of deceased for determiniPng the amount of compensation.

5 Learned counsel for claimants has submitted that in cross examination of PW1 Shiv Kumar who has proved the salary certificate Ext.PW1/A on record, no question has been puot with respect to objections now being raised with respect to Rs.2400/- shown to be earned by deceased against the column ‘others’.

6 Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that salary certoificate itself is reflecting that Rs.2400/- was not for any allowance oCr other facility indicated in the salary certificate but for unknown reason, this amount of Rs.2400/- has been reflected in the salary certificate. It has been submitted that it may be carried forward balance of the previous month or any other amount which may not be ipart of regular salary.

7 No other point has been urged.

8 Accident in reference, death of deceased, employment of deceased, number of dependents/legal heirs, applicability of multiplier, admissibility of 40% income as future income and deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses have not been disputed by either party.

9 Perusal of salary certificate and considering the details of amount payable and paid to deceased Satinder in salary certificate Ext.PW1