United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Debdatta Dhar Dey

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1268/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-21, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,90,27,680/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶34

Heard Sri.Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.K.T. Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶35

This appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2022 passed in MVC No.1268/2020 by the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, & Member, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as <the Tribunal=).

¶36

The parties are referred to as they stand before the Tribunal for convenience.

¶37

The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, <the Act=), seeking compensation on account of the death of Somenath Dey in a road traffic accident that occurred on 21.01.2020, involving a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-21-B-5615 and a tractor and trailer bearing Reg.Nos.KA-51-T-6381 and KA-51-T-6382 (hereinafter referred to as the <offending vehicle=). It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further pleaded that the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioners have also stated that they incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, funeral and other incidental charges. It is further pleaded that the deceased was working as Deputy Manager, Grade-III, at HAL, Bengaluru, and was earning a salary of Rs.1,70,000/- per month.

¶41

4.1 Upon service of notice, both respondents entered appearance through their respective counsel. Respondent No.1, in his statement of objections, denied the averments made in the petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tractor. It was further contended that the insurance policy was in force and that the driver of the offending tractor possessed a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and therefore, in the event of any compensation being awarded, the liability is to be fastened on respondent No.2.

¶42

4.2 Respondent No.2, in its statement of objections, while denying the averments made in the petition, also disputed the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

age, occupation and income of the deceased, as well as the expenses claimed to have been incurred. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Additionally, it was contended that the driver of

¶46

the offending tractor did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, and therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify.

¶47

4.3 In support of their case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and another witness was examined as PW.2. The petitioners marked 32 documents at Exs.P1 to P32. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence.

¶48

4.4 Upon consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor. The Tribunal, relying upon the pay slip for the month of December 2019 and the pay slips for the period from July 2019 to December 2019, marked at Exs.P20 to P25, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,33,230/-, after deducting income tax of Rs.15,311/- and professional tax of Rs.200/-, the Tribunal

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

considered the age of the deceased as 35 years, applied the multiplier of 8169, added 50% towards future prospects, and deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses.

¶52

4.5 In addition, the Tribunal awarded compensation under conventional heads. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,90,27,680/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶53

Sri Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel for the appellant3 Insurance Company, submits that the payslips produced by the petitioners to establish the income of the deceased vary from month to month, and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in taking Rs.1,48,741/- as the basis for determining the monthly income. It is further submitted that the deduction towards income tax is on the lower side and ought to have been computed in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 2021.

¶54

5.1 It is also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Learned counsel further submits that the incentive component reflected in the payslips ought to have

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

been excluded, as the same does not form part of the regular salary.

¶58

Sri K. T. Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents3claimants, submits that the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor. It is further submitted that, as the accident occurred on 21.01.2020, the Tribunal was justified in taking the payslip for the month of December 2019 as the basis for assessing the monthly income of the deceased.

¶59

6.1 Learned counsel also submits that the deductions towards income tax and professional tax have been made in accordance with the prevailing rates. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference.

¶60

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.

¶61

The date and occurrence of the accident, the age of the deceased, the applicable multiplier, and the liability of the

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

insurer are not in dispute. The validity of the policy is also not in dispute. The only grievance urged is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶65

8.1 The Tribunal, based on Ex.P25, payslip for the month of December 2019, has assessed the monthly income at Rs.1,48,741/-. Ex.P25 also corroborates the consistency in salary reflected in Exs.P20 to P24, which pertain to the period from July 2019 to November 2019. The said payslips are not in dispute. The amounts paid under various heads, though described as allowances, form part of the overall pay package and have been paid consistently. This Court in MFA No.1567/2024 in Priti Singh and ors. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. decided on 29.05.2025

¶66

has held that any payment made consistently assumes the character of a permanent component of income, and such allowances cannot be excluded while computing the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not deducting the said allowances while determining the monthly income of the deceased.

¶67

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

8.2 It is next contended that the deduction towards income

¶70

tax is on the lower side. The income tax is required to be deducted in accordance with the rates prescribed in the Finance Act relevant at the time of accident. As per the said Act, the income tax payable is Rs.22,747/-, and the professional tax is Rs.200/-. Accordingly, the net monthly income, after deduction of taxes, for the purpose of computation of compensation, would be Rs.1,25,794/-. The applicable multiplier, the age of the deceased, the percentage of future prospects, as well as the deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, are not in dispute. The same are accordingly maintained. Therefore, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be:

¶71

1,48,741 3 (22,747 + 200) = Rs.1,25,794/1,25,794 + (50% of 1,25,794) = Rs.1,88,691/1,88,691 3 (1/4^th of 1,79,616) = Rs.1,41,519/1,41,519 X 12 X 16 = Rs.2,71,71,648/-

¶72

8.3 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards

¶73

loss of love and affection. However, there is no provision for awarding compensation under the said head, particularly in

¶74

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

view of the amounts awarded under other conventional heads. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is liable to be deleted. Thus, the total compensation is re-computed as under:

¶77

Sl No.	Heads Of I	ncome		Compensation by Tribunal in Rs.	Enhanced Compensation in Rs.
1.	Towards affection	love	and	60,000/-	-
2.	Towards expenses transportati	fu on charg	neral and e	15,000/-	15,000/-
3.	Towards dependency	loss	of	2,87,77,680/-	2,71,71,648/-
4.	Towards los	s of esta	te	15,000/-	15,000/-
5.	Towards consortium	loss	of	1,60,000/-	1,60,000/-
	Total Comp	ensation		2,90,27,680/-	2,73,61,648/-
	Reduced Compensa	tion		16,66,	032/-

¶78

The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,73,61,648/- as against Rs.2,90,27,680/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶79

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶80

O R D E R

¶81

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:19414-DB MFA No. 1364 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

(ii) The order in MVC No.1268/2020 dated 27.07.2022 passed by XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is modified by reducing the compensation to Rs.2,73,61,648/as against Rs.2,90,27,680/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶86