# Laxman Prasad Mishra & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1386
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-16
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1282 of 2017
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxman-prasad-mishra-anr-v-national-insurance-company-ltd-ors-54044
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

50. Accordingly, FAFO No.1698 of 2008 preferred by the UPSRTC is dismissed.

51. FAFO No.2491 of 2019 preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation
is allowed. The award of the tribunal dated 17.03.2008 is modified to the above extent.

52. If any amount has been paid by the UPSRTC previously, then it is entitled to adjust the
amount accordingly. UPSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before
the concerned tribunal within two months.

53. Office is directed to remit the statutory deposit made by the appellant UPSRTC in FAFO
No.1698 of 2008 to the concerned tribunal, forthwith.

54. Interim order, if any, in FAFO No. 1698 of 2008, stands vacated.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1386
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

FAFO No. 1282 of 2017

Laxman Prasad Mishra & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement with respect to (i) computation of
income of the deceased, (ii) grant of future prospects, (iii) application of correct multiplier, and (iv) nonpecuniary heads.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Determination of income - Gross salary -
Allowances - Deduction of income tax:

Held: The gross salary of the deceased including allowances such as house rent allowance and family planning
allowance is to be considered for computation of compensation - Deduction of such allowances by the
Tribunal was erroneous - Only statutory deductions such as income tax are permissible - The Tribunal
further erred in deducting excess amount towards income tax instead of actual tax payable after permissible
rebate. [Paras 16-20]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Relevance of pension and
compassionate appointment:

Held: Family pension received by the spouse and compassionate appointment granted to a dependent are not
relevant factors for denying compensation towards future prospects - Such benefits are independent and
cannot be treated as pecuniary advantage deductible from compensation - The claimants were entitled to
1 All. Laxman Prasad Mishra & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
1387
addition of 20% towards future prospects in terms of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 -
The Tribunal erred in denying the same. [Paras 26-28]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Non-pecuniary heads - Enhancement:

Held: The amount awarded by the Tribunal under non-pecuniary heads such as consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses was inadequate and required enhancement in light of settled principles laid down by the
Supreme Court. [Para 22]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal - Enhancement of compensation - Re-determination:
Held: Upon proper computation of income, addition of future prospects, application of correct multiplier and
enhancement under non-pecuniary heads, the compensation payable to the claimants was liable to be
substantially enhanced - The award of the Tribunal was modified accordingly and the insurer directed to pay
the enhanced compensation with interest. [Paras 29-31]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, (2008) 2 SCC 763 - relied on; Shyamwati
Sharma v. Karam Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 378 - relied on; Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport
Corporation Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 22 - relied on; Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2019) 17 SCC 465 - relied on;Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram Pasha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1106
-
relied
on;
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben, (2017) 13 SCC 547 - relied on;

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (Rule 220-A); Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 80-C);

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Compensation; Gross salary; Allowances; Income tax deduction; Multiplier; Future prospects;
Pension; Compassionate appointment; Non-pecuniary damages; Enhancement.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur in MACP No. 322 of 2013.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Smt. Deepali Srivastava Sinha
For the Respondents: Sri Rajesh Kumar.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of
compensation has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated
31.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1,
Gorakhpur, in MACP No. 322 of 2013 (Laxman Prasad Mishra and another vs. Brijesh Singh and
others), whereby, for the untimely death of Smt. Kusumlata Mishra in a motor accident that
occurred on 02.05.2013, a compensation of Rs.11,93,204/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer
of the offending Bus No.UP53-BT-7702.
1388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Since no cross appeal has been filed by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending
vehicle, as such, the factum of accident and negligence of the offending driver is not disputed by
the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that Kusumlata Mishra (deceased)
was employed as a supervisor with the Department of Women and Child Welfare in Hata, District
Kushinagar and was getting a gross salary of Rs.40,156/- per month, which was also proved by
PW-3 Vijay Laxmi Ojha.

4. It was further submitted that the deceased was about 58 years old at the time of the accident,
but no compensation towards future prospects of the deceased was granted by the Tribunal,
whereas the claimants were entitled to get it at the rate of 20%, as per Rule 220-A of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.

5. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has illegally not considered the house rent
allowance and family planning allowance paid to the deceased for assessing compensation, whereas
the gross salary being paid to the deceased should have been considered for assessing the
compensation.

6. It was further submitted that on the gross salary of the deceased, which was Rs.4,81,872/-
per annum, after claiming rebate of Rs.1,00,000/-, towards Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act,
1961, an income tax of Rs.18,800/- was payable, which should have been deducted by the Tribunal
for assessing compensation, but the Tribunal has deducted an amount of Rs.21,543/- towards
income tax payable by the deceased, which was excessive.

7. It was further submitted that keeping in view the age of the deceased, which was about 58
years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 9 was to be applied for assessing compensation, but
the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 4, which requires enhancement.

8. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation
under non-pecuniary heads, which requires substantial enhancement.

9. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal preferred by the appellants be allowed
and enhanced compensation be paid to them.

10. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the
Tribunal has considered the aspect of grant of compensation for future prospects to the claimants,
but has concluded that since the husband of the deceased was getting family pension of Rs.23,632/-
per month and the son of the deceased was also offered compassionate appointment, as such, on
this ground, the Tribunal refused to award any compensation towards future prospects of the
deceased, which was perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.
1 All. Laxman Prasad Mishra & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
1389

11. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
awarded the right amount of compensation to the claimants, which does not warrant any
enhancement from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

12. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal preferred by the claimants be
dismissed.

13. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the impugned judgment
and documents submitted with the appeal.

14. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs Indira Srivastava &
Ors (2008) 2 SCC 763 has held that the amount paid to the deceased by his employer by way of
perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to
his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which
were for his benefit and from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable
thereupon must be deducted. It was further held that net income would ordinarily mean gross
income minus the statutory deductions.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma & Ors vs Karam Singh & Ors
(2010) 12 SCC 378 and Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 13
SCC 22 (By 3 Judges) has held that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions
shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of
loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge
alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.

16. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that all the allowances
being paid to the deceased by his employer should be considered while assessing the compensation
in a claim case and only the amount deducted towards income tax and surcharge should be
considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.

17. It is well settled that the gross salary of the deceased-employee is to be considered for
assessing the compensation in a claim case, as such, the amount deducted by the Tribunal towards
house rent allowance and family planning allowance being paid to the deceased, is erroneous.

18. It is apparent that the gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 40,156/- which
amounts to Rs.4,81,872/- per annum, which was duly proved by PW-3, Vijay Laxmi Ojha, and was
also accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs. 11,040/- towards
house rent allowance and Rs. 5,400/- towards family planning allowance and thereafter, assessed
the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 4,65,432/-. From the said amount, a further sum of Rs.
21,543/- was deducted towards income tax, and the Tribunal consequently assessed the
compensation on the basis of the net annual income of Rs. 4,43,889/-, which is erroneous.

19. It is apparent that no amount being paid to the deceased towards house rent allowance and
family planning allowance could have been deducted while assessing the compensation.
1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. It is further apparent that after claiming rebate under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act,
1961, only an amount of Rs.18,800/- was payable by the deceased towards income tax, which
should have been deducted from the gross annual salary of the deceased, which was Rs.4,81,872/-,
but the Tribunal has deducted an amount of Rs.21,543/-, which was excessive. If an amount of
Rs.18,800/- payable towards income tax is deducted from the gross salary of the deceased, which
was Rs.4,81,872/- per annum, then the net annual salary of the deceased comes to Rs.4,63,072/-, on
the basis, of which, compensation should have been calculated by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal
has calculated the compensation by taking the net salary of the deceased at only Rs.4,43,889/-,
which requires enhancement.

21. It is further apparent that as per the date of birth 10.12.1954 recorded in the service book
of the deceased, she was about 58 years old at the time of the accident and a multiplier of 9 was to
be applied for assessing the compensation, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra), but the Tribunal has assessed the compensation by applying multiplier of 4, which requires
enhancement.

22. It was further apparent that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation
towards non pecuniary heads, which deserves substantial enhancement, keeping in view, the
judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.
(supra) and Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra).

23. The Apex Court in the case of Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and another, (2019) 17 SCC 465, (By 3 Judges), while discussing the amount
which are to be deducted for assessment of compensation has held as under:

12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of
compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or
gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these
amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him
with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependants or the legal
heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The
claimants/dependants are entitled to ?just compensation? under the Motor Vehicles Act as
a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural
corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his
dependants as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his lifetime
cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these
amounts may go into the hands of the dependants only after his death.

13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is concerned whatever is added
to the estate of the deceased or his dependants is not because of the death of the deceased but
because of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance company from where
he took out the policy. The deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amount would
have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever
be the manner of his death. These amounts are paid because the deceased has wisely invested his
savings. Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share,
1 All. Laxman Prasad Mishra & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
1391
debentures, etc. The tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial
investments made by the deceased.

14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on
account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle
of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more
in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on
his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also
payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said
amount cannot be deducted.

15. As held by the House of Lords in Parry v. Cleaver [Parry v. Cleaver, 1970 AC 1 :
(1969) 2 WLR 821 : 1969 ACJ 363 (HL)] the insurance amount is the fruit of premium paid in the
past, pension is the fruit of services already rendered and the wrongdoer should not be given benefit
of the same by deducting it from the damages assessed.

16. Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount
has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

24. The Apex Court in the case of Hanumantharaju B. through LR vs. M. Akram Pasha and
another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1106, while discussing whether the pension payable to the claimant
can
be
deducted
for
computing
his
income,
has
held
as
under:
19. It is also now well settled that the amount of compensation is to be calculated on the basis of
last drawn salary of the injured/deceased in respect of salaried persons and pension and such
retirement benefits enjoyed cannot be deducted for computing the income, these being statutory
rights receivable by the employee or his legal heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of
accidents, fatal injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not directly relatable to the motor
accident. Hence, pensionary benefit could not have been treated as ?pecuniary advantage? liable to
be deducted for the purpose of computation of compensation within the scope of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.

For this proposition of law, we may refer to the decision in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan
(2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein this Court, by referring to the earlier decision in Helen C. Rebello v.
Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90, held as follows:?

"19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v.
Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197]. In the said case, this Court held that
provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc.
are all a ?pecuniary advantage? receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have
no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed
as ?pecuniary advantage? liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of
this Court : (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35)
1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a
deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his
service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the
accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount
under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the
event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also
earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the
service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The
heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation
between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the
heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured
contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till
maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to
pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this
amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but
otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the
contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits,
etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's
death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute
occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within
the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage? liable for
deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and
same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance
of any co-relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he
receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against
the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount
receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without
making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received
through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As
we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while
the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual."

Thus, this Court has categorically held that any amount receivable on account of PF,
pension or insurance cannot be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose of
determining the income or loss of earning for calculating compensation. This principle was
reiterated in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627 and National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356.

25. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rekhaben & Ors. (2017)
13 SCC 547 held as under:-

22. In the present cases, the claimants were offered compassionate employment. The
claimants were not offered any sum of money equal to the income of the deceased. In fact, they
were not offered any sum of money at all. They were offered employment and the money they
1 All. Laxman Prasad Mishra & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
1393
receive in the form of their salary, would be earned from such employment. The loss of income in
such cases cannot be said to be set off because the claimants would be earning their living.
Therefore, we are of the view that the amount earned by the claimants from compassionate
appointments cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation receivable by them under the
Act.

23. In the cases before us, compensation is claimed from the owner of the
offending vehicle who is different from the employer who has offered employment on
compassionate grounds to the dependants of the deceased/injured. The source from which
compensation on account of the accident is claimed and the source from which the
compassionate employment is offered, are completely separate and there is no co-relation
between these two sources. Since the tortfeasor has not offered the compassionate
appointment, we are of the view that an amount which a claimant earns by his labour or by
offering his services, whether by reason of compassionate appointment or otherwise is not
liable to be deducted from the compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive from
a tortfeasor under the Act. In such a situation, we are of the view that the financial benefit
of the compassionate employment is not liable to be deducted at all from the compensation
amount which is liable to be paid either by the owner/the driver of the offending vehicle or
the insurer.

26. It is further apparent that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards future prospects of the deceased on the ground that the husband of the
deceased was getting a family pension of Rs.23,632/- per month and the son of the
deceased has been given compassionate appointment in place of the deceased, which is
erroneous, because the above factors were not at all relevant for considering
compensation in this case.

27. It is apparent from the above law laid down by the Apex Court that the family pension
being paid to the husband of the deceased and the fact of compassionate appointment of the son is
not at all relevant for assessing compensation in a claim case and on this basis, the claimants should
not have been denied compensation towards future prospects of the deceased.

28. It is apparent that, as per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the
claimants were entitled to get compensation towards future prospects of the deceased at the rate of
20% of his income, which has not been awarded by the Tribunal.

29. In view of the above statutory law and precedents of the Apex Court, the compensation
payable to the claimants is redetermined as under:-

S.No. Compensation Heads
Amount Awarded (in
Rs.)
In Accordance with.
1.
Gross annual salary of the deceased
4,81,872/-
Salary Certificate of the
deceased
2.
Less income tax payable on this
salary
18,800/-
Salary Certificate of the
deceased
1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
S.No. Compensation Heads
Amount Awarded (in
Rs.)
In Accordance with.
3.
Net annual salary of the deceased
4,63,072
Salary Certificate of the
deceased
4.
Less 1/3rd deduction towards self
expenses
of
the
deceased
(2
dependents)
1,54,357/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
5.
Net
annual
income
on
which
claimants were dependent
3,08,715/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
6.
Add future prospects @20% since
deceased was aged about 58 years
61,743/-
Rule 220-A of UP Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998
7.
Total annual dependency of claimants
on deceased
3,70,458/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
8.
Multiplier applied since age of
deceased was about 58 years at the
time of the accident
9
Pranay Sethi (supra)
9.
Total loss of dependency to the
claimants
3,70,458X9=33,34,122/- Pranay Sethi (supra)
10.
Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/-
each, increased by 10% after every 3
years (2 claimants)
48,400X2=96,800/-
Pranay
Sethi
(supra),
Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd. (supra) and Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable (supra)
11.
Loss
of
estate
@
Rs.15,000/-
increased by 10% after every 3 years. 18,150/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
12.
Funeral Expenses @ Rs.15,000/-
increased by 10% after every 3 years. 18,150/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
13.
Total compensation
34,67,222/-

30. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.34,67,222/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till it's
actual payment, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Bus No.UP53BT-7702.

31. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal is modified to the above
extent.

32. If any amount has been paid by the insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned
tribunal within two months. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally award
the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants keeping in view their age
and dependency.
----------
1 All. Smt. Kashmiri & Ors. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
1395
(2026) 1 ILRA 1395
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

FAFO No. 2841 of 2016

Smt. Kashmiri & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement with respect to (i) determination
of income of the deceased in absence of documentary proof, (ii) grant of future prospects, (iii) deduction
towards personal expenses, (iv) application of correct multiplier, and (v) non-pecuniary heads.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Determination of income - Absence of
documentary proof - Minimum wages:

Held: Where no documentary evidence of income is produced, the Tribunal is required to assess income on
the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevailing at the relevant time - Assessment of notional
income at Rs.15,000/- per annum was grossly inadequate - The income of the deceased was liable to be
determined on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the State. [Paras 12-14]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Deceased below 40 years:

Held: In terms of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, where the deceased was below 40 years
of age, addition of 50% towards future prospects is mandatory - The Tribunal erred in not awarding any
compensation under this head. [Paras 15, 19]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Deduction towards personal expenses - Bachelor
- Large dependent family:

Held: Although ordinarily 50% deduction is made in case of a bachelor, where the deceased was the sole
bread-earner of a large dependent family, deduction towards personal expenses may be restricted to one-third
- The remaining two-third income is to be treated as contribution to the family. [Paras 21-23]

Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
-
Compensation
-
Multiplier
-
Age
of
deceased:
Held: The deceased being about 22 years of age at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable
was 18 - The Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 16, resulting in under-assessment of compensation.
[Para 19]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Non-pecuniary heads - Consortium -
Enhancement:

Held: The claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads including consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses in accordance with settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court - The