Case at a Glance
A 20-year-old mason riding a motorcycle was killed in 2009 when a vehicle coming from the opposite direction struck him. The Sirmaur Tribunal awarded ₹4,67,000. In its appeal, the insurer argued for the first time that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and challenged the income and future prospects. The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused to entertain a ground never raised before the Tribunal, upheld the notional income of ₹3,000 a month, corrected future prospects to 40% under Pranay Sethi, applied the multiplier by the deceased’s age, and updated the conventional heads — raising the award to ₹5,46,770.
On 11 March 2009, Sushil Thakur, about 20 and described as a mason earning ₹5,000 a month, was riding a motorcycle near Village Bohlion when two vehicles allegedly came from the opposite side and one of them struck his motorcycle; he died on the spot. His family claimed ₹10,00,000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Before the Tribunal, the respondents blamed the deceased’s own negligence, and the insurer raised objections about the driving licence, use for hire and reward, and collusion.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, partly allowed the petition and awarded ₹4,67,000 with 7.5% interest, assessing income at ₹3,000 a month and adding 50% for future prospects. Bajaj Allianz appealed, contending that the deceased was driving rashly and under the influence of liquor so the insurer was not liable, and that the income assessment and the 50% future-prospects addition were wrong.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an insurer raise drunken driving as a defence for the first time in appeal, and was the Tribunal’s computation of compensation for the young mason’s death correct?
No New Defences in Appeal, and a Fresh Look at the Numbers
Justice Sushil Kukreja held that the drunken-driving plea had not been raised before the Tribunal and so “cannot be urged in appeal when it was not raised before the court of learned Tribunal below”, relying on Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh, (2008) 05 SC CK 0001 and Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 02 SC CK 0160 On income, following Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2021) 10 SC CK 0002, the Court held that minimum wages are a yardstick, not an absolute rule, and that oral evidence may be considered; the notional income of ₹3,000 a month was upheld.
The insurer was right that a 50% addition for future prospects was wrong for a self-employed person under 40; under National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044 the correct addition is 40%. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% was deducted for personal expenses, giving ₹2,100 a month. Holding that “the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier”, the Court applied a multiplier of 18 under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 04 SC CK 0222, giving loss of dependency of ₹4,53,600. Following Sunita v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 07 SC CK 0234 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, it awarded ₹19,965 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate and ₹53,240 as filial consortium — taking the total to ₹5,46,770.
What the Court Actually Held
- A drunken-driving defence not raised before the Tribunal cannot be urged for the first time in appeal.
- Minimum wages are a yardstick, not an absolute rule; the Tribunal’s notional income of ₹3,000 a month for the mason was upheld.
- For a self-employed deceased below 40, future prospects are 40% under Pranay Sethi, not 50%; the multiplier is based on the deceased’s age (18 here), with 50% personal deduction for a bachelor.
- The award was modified to ₹5,46,770, including updated conventional heads and filial consortium, with no change to the other terms of the Tribunal’s award.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reminds insurers that defences such as intoxication must be pleaded and proved before the Tribunal; they cannot be sprung in appeal.
- It shows that an appellate court corrects the entire computation under settled law, which can increase the award even in an insurer’s appeal.
- It applies the current conventional amounts and filial consortium following Sunita and Nanu Ram, important for parents of unmarried victims.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- Even in an insurer’s appeal, ask the court to apply updated conventional heads and filial consortium.
- Oral evidence of income can support a notional income where documents are missing.
- Parents of a young unmarried victim are entitled to filial consortium.
For Insurers’ Counsel
- Plead every defence, including drunken driving, in the written statement and lead evidence before the Tribunal.
- An appeal on future prospects may succeed on the percentage yet still lead to a higher total once conventional heads are updated.
- Licence, hire-and-reward and collusion objections must also be proved at trial.
Key Takeaways
- New defences cannot be raised for the first time in an MACT appeal.
- Self-employed victims under 40 get 40% future prospects.
- The multiplier follows the deceased’s age.
- An insurer’s appeal can result in a higher award.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an insurer argue drunken driving for the first time in appeal?
No. In this case the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the plea, not raised before the Tribunal, could not be urged in appeal.
What future prospects apply to a self-employed person under 40?
Following Pranay Sethi, the Court applied 40% for the self-employed deceased below 40, correcting the Tribunal’s 50%.
Why did the award go up in the insurer’s own appeal?
Although future prospects were reduced, the Court recomputed the claim under settled law and added updated amounts for funeral expenses, loss of estate and filial consortium, taking the total from ₹4,67,000 to ₹5,46,770.
Conclusion
Bajaj Allianz v. Uma Devi, (2026) 09 SHI CK 3292 is a reminder that an appeal is not a second chance to plead a new case. The insurer’s late intoxication plea failed, and the appellate court’s fresh application of settled compensation principles left the family better off than before.
Practical takeaway: Insurers must plead and prove defences like drunken driving before the Tribunal; claimants facing an insurer’s appeal should still press for full conventional heads and filial consortium.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com