Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Kuldeep Singh and others

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This order shall dispose of the above two appeals arising out of the award dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby compensation of ₹26,36,908/- was awarded to the claimants on account of death of Smt. Roshni Devi in a motor vehicular accident. The claimants have preferred the appeal seeking enhancement, whereas the insurance company has filed the connected appeal seeking reduction of the compensation.

The facts, in brief, are that on 29.01.2015, Smt. Roshni Devi (deceased) was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-99-TP-4170 along with Harcharan Singh. At about 9.00 a.m., near village Ajrana Khurd, motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-07H-9687, driven by respondent No.1-Jai Singh, struck their motorcycle. Roshni Devi sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same at LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. FIR No.6 dated 29.01.2015 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No.1. Her three children and mother-in-law filed claim petition under Section 166 Of Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation from the driver -cum-owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

Respondents resisted the claim.

Ld. Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It further found that respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence and consequently fastened liability upon respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, with respondent No.2-insurance company being liable to indemnify the insured.

Seeking enhancement, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased was a regular employee of Kurukshetra University and that addition towards future prospects has not been made. It is further submitted that the compensation under the conventional heads has also not been assessed in accordance with the law subsequently declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, in its appeal seeking reduction of compensation, has submitted that the Tribunal wrongly adopted deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses and that the adult sons and married daughter of the deceased could not be treated as dependants merely because they were her legal representatives. It is further contended that the pension amount credited into the account of the deceased could not form part of the multiplicand.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

There is no justification to interfere with the finding regarding negligence. The Tribunal relied upon the testimony of Harcharan Singh, who was travelling with the deceased, as well as the criminal proceedings arising out of the accident. No perversity in the said finding has been established.

Likewise, the finding regarding the validity of the driving licence of respondent No.1 has not been shown to be erroneous. The driving licence produced on record was valid on the date of accident and the insurer did not lead evidence sufficient to establish breach in this regard. The liability of the insurer, therefore, remains undisturbed.

The Tribunal accepted the monthly salary of the deceased at ₹22,324/- on the basis of salary certificate Ex.P2 and salary statement Ex.P3 proved by PW2, an official of Kurukshetra University. The said finding is supported by documentary evidence and does not call for interference.

The claimants had also pleaded that the deceased was receiving pension of her deceased husband. The Tribunal declined to take the said amount into consideration on the ground that the same had not been substantiated by cogent evidence.

During the course of hearing before this Court, attention has been drawn to Ex.P11, the bank statement of the deceased. It records a credit of ₹7,000/- on 01.12.2014 and ₹8,470/- on 31.12.2014 towards pension. It also records a credit of ₹7,245/- on 31.01.2015. Since the deceased expired on 29.01.2015, the latter credit is subsequent to her death and cannot, in any event, be treated as income received by her during her lifetime.

The mere proof of the aforesaid credits, however, does not conclude the issue. What is material is the nature and character of the pension.

The deceased was a serving employee of Kurukshetra University and the pension in question was pleaded to be the pension of her deceased husband. Thus, on the material presently available, the pension was not an income earned by Roshni Devi from her own service but was a family pension received by her in her capacity as widow of her deceased husband.

The distinction between pension earned by the deceased from her own service, and family pension received by her by virtue of the service of her deceased husband is material.

In Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, (1999) 1 SCC 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that benefits received by the legal representatives by virtue of the deceased's past service or contributions, which have no nexus with the accidental death, cannot ordinarily be treated as pecuniary advantages arising from the accident so as to reduce the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The principle has subsequently been considered in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others, (2020) 11 SCC 356, the Court dealt with financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 and emphasised the necessity of proof before effecting any deduction.

The subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika and others, 2026 INSC 188, has now explained the relationship between Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma and others, (2016) 9 SCC 627 and Birender (supra). It has been held that the substantive principle is that only a benefit, which overlaps with the same pecuniary loss, for which compensation is being awarded can be deducted, while benefits such as family pension, provident fund and life insurance, which are not in the nature of income substitution for the same loss, remain unaffected. The Court further clarified that Birender's Case deals primarily with the stage and evidentiary basis for making such deduction.

The aforesaid principle is also consistent with the judgment of this Court in Shweta Madan and another v. Sandeep Kumar and others, FAO No.1156 of 2012, decided on 10.08.2026. However, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the deceased himself was a retired employee and was receiving pension of ₹11,440/- per month from his own past service. This Court treated the pension actually being received by the deceased as part of his income for determining loss of dependency. The Court was not dealing with family pension received by the deceased as widow of another employee.

The principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is, therefore, that the source and character of the pension must first be identified. Pension earned by the deceased from his or her own service and actually forming part of the deceased's income is a different category from family pension received by the deceased as a widow on account of the service of her deceased husband.

In the present case, the material noticed by the Tribunal describes the pension as family pension of the deceased's husband. Ex.P11 establishes receipt of certain pensionary credits but does not establish that the said pension was earned by Roshni Devi from her own service. There is, therefore, no justification for treating the said family pension as income of the deceased for the purpose of determining the multiplicand.

Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is taken at ₹22,324/-.

The deceased was a regular employee of Kurukshetra University and was aged about 49 years and 6 months at the time of the accident.

In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of a person having a permanent job, addition of 30% of the established income is to be made, where the deceased was between 40 and 50 years of age.

Accordingly, 30% is required to be added towards future prospects. So, with monthly salary of ₹22,324/-, after adding 30% future prospects being ₹ 6,697.20/-, total works out to be ₹29,021.20/-

The Tribunal deducted one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses by treating all four claimants as dependants. The insurer has challenged the said deduction in its separate appeal seeking reduction.

The fact that a person is a legal representative does not, by itself, establish financial dependency. The deduction has to be determined with reference to the number of actual dependants. The principle is settled by Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

The insurer has challenged the deduction of one-fourth made by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, contending that the adult sons and married daughter could not be treated as dependants merely on account of their relationship with the deceased.

The contention, however, cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the age or marital status of the claimants. The claimants had specifically pleaded that all the four claimants were dependent upon the deceased. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, accepted the said position and treated all four claimants as dependants while determining the loss of dependency. No evidence has been pointed out from the record to establish that any of the four claimants was financially independent of the deceased or was not dependent upon her income. Statement of PW3 Kuldeep also does not point out to this effect. In particular, the mere fact that claimant Nos.1 and 2 were major sons and claimant No.3 was a married daughter cannot, by itself, lead to a conclusion that they were not dependent upon the deceased.

It is well settled that the status of a person as a major son or daughter is not, by itself, determinative of the question of dependency. The question is one of fact to be determined from the evidence available on record. In the present case, the insurer, which seeks reduction of compensation on the ground that the claimants were not dependants, has not been able to point out any evidence which would dislodge the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard.

The standardized formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), provides that where the deceased was married, one-third of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. This principle has subsequently been affirmed by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

In the present case, there are four claimants who have been found to be dependent upon the deceased. There is no evidence to warrant exclusion of any of them from the category of dependants. Consequently, the deduction towards personal and living expenses is rightly to be made at the rate of one-fourth.

The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect, therefore, does not call for interference. The contention raised by the insurance company seeking deduction of one-third instead of one-fourth is rejected.

The loss of dependency is accordingly computed as under:

Monthly income of deceased ₹22,324.00/-

Add: 30% towards future prospects ₹ 6,697.20/-

Total monthly income ₹29,021.20/-

Less: 1/4th towards personal expenses ₹ 7,255.30/-

Monthly contribution to family ₹21,765.90/-

Annual contribution ₹2,61,190.80/-

The deceased was aged about 49 years and 6 months at the time of the accident. The multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal is in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and does not call for interference.

Applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency comes to ₹33,95,480/- (₹ 2,61,190.80 × 13), rounded off to the nearest rupee.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. The compensation under the conventional heads also requires reconsideration in view of the law subsequently declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the judgments relating to consortium.

In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court prescribed compensation under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently clarified in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780, that consortium includes parental and filial consortium and that children are entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium.

In the present case, the deceased left behind two sons and one daughter. The said three children are, therefore, entitled to filial consortium. The mother-in-law, however, would not fall within the category of persons entitled to consortium on account of loss of the deceased.

Keeping in view the amounts prescribed in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount towards filial consortium is assessed at ₹40,000/- for each of the three children, totalling ₹1,20,000/-. The amount towards loss of estate is assessed at ₹15,000/- and funeral expenses at ₹15,000/-.

The compensation is, therefore, reassessed as follows:

Loss of dependency ₹33,95,480/-

Filial consortium to three children ₹ 1,20,000/-

Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/-

Transportation and funeral expenses ₹ 15,000/-

Total ₹35,45,480/-

The Tribunal had awarded ₹26,36,908/-. The total compensation is, therefore, enhanced to ₹35,45,480/-, resulting in enhancement of ₹9,08,572/- (rounded off to ₹9,09,000/-)

The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The liability of respondents No.1 and 2 shall remain joint and several, with respondent No.2-insurance company being liable to indemnify the insured.

The amount of ₹2,50,000/- each shall be payable to three children with proportionate interest; and rest of the amount with proportionate interest shall be payable to the mother-in-law. Amount awarded by Tribunal shall also be disbursed in same proportion.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the insurance company seeking reduction is dismissed. The award dated 20.11.2015 is modified to the extent indicated above.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.