IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 2896 of 2022 SMT. PAYAL AND OTHERS Versus B.R.GOYAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shivam Soni on behalf of Shri Divik Mukati, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Mehra on behalf of Shri Akshansh Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 21.02.2022 passed in Claim Case No. 3762/2018 whereby an amount of Rs.28,36,920/- has been awarded to the survivors of the deceased Gourav Kumar, who passed away in road traffic accident which occurred on 30.10.2018 involving the offending vehicle Truck No. MP-09-KC-8820.

02. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. He was permanent employee as Manager in Aviva Insurance Company Ltd. and was getting salary of Rs.37,250/-. In this regard, pay slips Ex.P/13 to P/18 has been filed to show the income. However, despite being evidence available on record, allowances and P.F. has been deducted thereby income only Rs.14,844/- has been considered for computing the award by the learned Claims Tribunal amount which is not proper. Hence, he prays for considering the income of the deceased as Rs.37,250/- and accordingly computing the just and proper compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the allowance from the salary which is not permissible as held by the Apex Court in the case of Manorma Sinha vs. The Divisional Manager Oriental [Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 19878/2022, decided on 15.10.2025]. Relevant para - 12 reads as under:-

"Now, the next question is whether allowances are to be added to the salary for determining the multiplicand. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors., it was held that “the term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family”. In Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation a three- Judge Bench of this court noticing earlier decisions on the point observed that “the income should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax, although some elements thereof may not be taxable due to exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.” Following the decision in Vijay Kumar Rastogi (supra) in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini & Ors.8 it was held by this Court that the emoluments and the benefits accruing to the 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. Thus, in our view, the High Court erred in excluding the allowances from the computation to arrive at the multiplicand. Hence, the total monthly income was rightly computed by the Tribunal at Rs.53,367."

03. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has opposed the prayer on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has considered the income in right perspective and in all the other heads also, the amount has been properly added to arrive at just and proper compensation, hence prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

04. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that deceased Gourav Kumar was 37 years old, employed with Aviva Insurance Company Ltd. and was earning net income Rs.37,250/- after deduction of income tax and professional tax, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has failed to either in not taki