# Smt Mugga Devi & Ors v. Makkhan Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1303
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1995 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mugga-devi-ors-v-makkhan-singh-ors-54014
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1 All. Smt. Mugga Devi & Ors. Vs. Makkhan Singh & Ors.
1303
whether before the trial court material was sufficient to summon the revisionists under Section 319
Cr.P.C. or not.

18. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court, impugned
order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track
Court, Court No. 1, Kaushambi has been passed by proper reasoning.

19. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1303
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1995 of 2024

Smt Mugga Devi & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Makkhan Singh & Ors. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in computing compensation by deducting family pension from the pension of
the deceased;
(ii) Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation with respect to (a) income based
on pension, (b) future prospects, (c) multiplier, and (d) non-pecuniary heads.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Income - Pension - Deduction of family pension:

Held: Pension received by the deceased at the time of accident is to be taken as the basis for computation of
compensation - Deduction of family pension received by the widow from the pension of the deceased is
impermissible - Family pension has no nexus with compensation under the Act and cannot be treated as
pecuniary advantage - The Tribunal erred in assessing income on the differential amount between pension
and family pension. [Paras 8-10]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Age above 50 years:

Held: In terms of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, even where the deceased was above 50
years of age, addition of 20% towards future prospects is admissible - The Tribunal erred in not awarding
compensation under this head. [Paras 11, 18]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Multiplier - Age above 65 years:
Held: Where the deceased was above 65 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 5 is applicable in
terms of the Second Schedule of the Act - The compensation is to be computed accordingly. [Paras 15-16]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Deduction towards personal expenses -
Dependants:
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: Where the deceased had five dependants, deduction towards personal expenses is to be made to the
extent of one-fourth and the remaining income is to be treated as contribution to the family. [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 - The amounts awarded by the Tribunal
were liable to be enhanced. [Paras 12-14, 18]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal - Enhancement of compensation - Re-determination:
Held: Upon proper computation of income on the basis of pension, addition of future prospects, application of
appropriate multiplier and enhancement under non-pecuniary heads, the compensation payable to the
claimants was liable to be enhanced - The award of the Tribunal was modified accordingly. [Paras 19-21]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

.
Case Law Cited
Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram Pasha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1106 - relied on; Sebastiani Lakra
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 465 - relied on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 - relied on; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram,
(2018) 18 SCC 130 - relied on; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav, (2023) 13 SCC
334 - relied on; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadhana Debnath, 2023 SCC OnLine Tri 846 -
referred to; Sumitra Dwarkanath Sirsat v. Shivanand Hanumantappa Bisirotti, 2015 SCC OnLine
Bom 276 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998.

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Pension; Family pension; Deduction; Pecuniary advantage; Future prospects; Multiplier;
Elderly deceased; Consortium; Compensation enhancement.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moradabad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 253 of 2018 (Smt. Mugga Devi and others vs. Makkhan Singh and others).

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar
For the Respondents: Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

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

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation,
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award
dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moradabad in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.253 of 2018 (Smt. Mugga Devi and others vs. Makkhan Singh and others)
whereby for the untimely death of Jaiprakash Singh in a road accident that occurred on 07.02.2018,
a compensation of Rs.4,76,620/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the
1 All. Smt. Mugga Devi & Ors. Vs. Makkhan Singh & Ors.
1305
claimants(wife and sons), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle No.UP-21-BK-5747.

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

3. Sri Abhishek Tripathi holding brief of Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the
claimants - appellants submitted that Jaiprakash Singh (deceased) was a pensioner, who was getting
monthly pension of Rs.23,936/- per month and was about 73 years old at the time of the accident,
which was duly proved by the claimants, but on the ground that the wife of the deceased was
getting family pension of Rs.14,900/- per month, the Tribunal has assessed compensation on the
differential amount of Rs.9,036/- per month, which is erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that in
the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hanumantharaju B. through LR vs.
M. Akram Pasha and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1106, the compensation should have been
assessed on the basis of pension received by the deceased at the time of the accident and tribunal
was not supposed to consider the family pension granted to the wife of the deceased after the
accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants were also entitled to compensation
on future prospects of the deceased @ 20%, keeping in view Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules,1998 but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards it. It was further
submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation under non-pecuniary
heads, which requires enhancement. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be
allowed and enhanced compensation be paid to the claimants.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the
deceased was about 73 years old at the time of the accident, who had no future prospects and the
wife of the deceased was also getting family pension of Rs.14,900/- per month, which the Tribunal
has rightly deducted from the pension of the deceased for assessing the compensation, as such, the
claimants are not entitled to any enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal and this
appeal deserves no interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and documents
submitted with the appeal.

6. 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
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, 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.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Hanumantharaju (supra), 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,
1 All. Smt. Mugga Devi & Ors. Vs. Makkhan Singh & Ors.
1307
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)

"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 corelation 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.

8. It is apparent from the above judgements of the Apex Court that the pension paid to the
claimant or family pension being paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee is not to be
considered and deducted while assessing compensation in the claim case and the compensation is
to be determined on the basis of salary/pension of the injured/deceased, which he was getting at the
time of the accident.
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In the instant case, the deceased Jaiprakash Singh was about 73 years old at the time of the
accident and was getting a gross pension of Rs.23,936/- at the time of the accident and after his
death his wife Smt. Muggi Devi was getting family pension of Rs.14,900/- per month, as such, the
Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of differential amount of pension and family
pension, which was Rs. 9,036/- per month, which is erroneous. It is apparent that the family
pension which the wife of the deceased was getting after the death of the deceased was not at all to
be considered for assessing the compensation in the instant case but that amount of Rs. 14,900/- per
month has been deducted from the pension of Rs.23,936/- per month, which the deceased was
getting at the time of the accident, which is erroneous.

10. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to get
compensation on the basis of the monthly pension of the deceased, which was Rs.23,936/-.

11. Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 w.e.f. 26.09.2011, mandates that when
the deceased was aged above 50 years on the date of accident, the claimants are also entitled to
compensation on future prospects @20% of his income.

12. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680 has awarded loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is to be enhanced at the rate of
10% after every three years.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards
spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium.

14. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs Laxman Maruti
Jadhav (Dead) through LRS and Others (2023) 13 SCC 334, held as under:-

32. In the present case, MACT had granted a meagre amount of Rs 5000 towards loss of
consortium. However, the High Court granted a total amount of Rs 70,000 as consolidated amount
under all conventional heads, which included loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses. In Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , the Constitution Bench of this Court had
provided that all dependents should be separately awarded towards loss of consortium and had
actually awarded Rs 40,000 to each of the dependents. Considering the same, an amount of Rs
40,000 each is awarded to each of the four dependents towards loss of consortium.

(emphasis supplied)

15. It is apparent from Rule 220-A of the above Rules, the multiplier for determination of
compensation is to be applied as per Second Schedule provided in the Act of 1988. At the time of
the accident, the Second Schedule was in force, according to which, where the claimant/deceased
was above 65 years old at the time of accident, a multiplier of 5 is to be applied for assessing the
compensation in a claims case.
1 All. Smt. Mugga Devi & Ors. Vs. Makkhan Singh & Ors.
1309

16. The High Court of Tripura at Agartala in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs
Sadhana Debnath & Ors 2023 SCC OnLine Tri 846 held as under:-

19. According to the Pension Payment Order book, on the date of the accident, the age of
the deceased was 78 years. So, in terms of the multiplier as made applicable under the table
decided at Column No. (4) in Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier 5 is to be applied for the age group
of 65 years and above, the same is taken on record. Accordingly, the first point of argument of Mr.
Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is answered in favour of the
claimants. Here the argument of Mr. Deb, learned counsel that in Sarla Verma (supra) multiplier
5(five) is allowed up to the age schedule 66 years to 70 years does not stand because the same was
said by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said Judgment in the context of other cases. Therefore, the
age of the deceased 78 years is considered as per table 65 years and above and considered the
case of the claimants accordingly as there is no restriction up to 70 years. The lifespan as per table
can be beyond 70 years. Thus, the argument of the Insurance-counsel is rejected.

17. Similarly, The High Court of Bombay in the case of Sumitra Dwarkanath Sirsat & Ors
vs Shivanand Hanumantappa Bisirotti and Others 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 276 held as under:-

15. ......Admittedly deceased was about 71 years old at the time of death, therefore,
appropriate multiplier would be 5, hence compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.
135,000/- (Rupees one lakhs thirty five thousand only).

18. It is further apparent that as per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since
the deceased was above 50 years old at the time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to
compensation on future prospects @ 20% of his income but no compensation has been awarded by
the Tribunal on this account, which is erroneous. It is apparent that in the above Rule, there is no
upper age limit upto which the compensation towards future prospects of the deceased are
admissible, as such, even if the deceased was aged about 73 years at the time of the accident, even
then the claimants were entitled to compensation towards future prospects of the deceased @ 20%
of his income in accordance with the above Rules. It is further apparent that the claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation under non-pecuniary heads, keeping in view the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.
(supra) and Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra).

19. 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.
Monthly income of deceased as per his pension
23,936/-
Sebastiani
Lakra(supra)
and
Hanumantharaju (supra)
2.
Annual income of deceased
23,936x12=2,87,232/-
Sebastiani
Lakra(supra)
and
Hanumantharaju (supra)
3.
Less 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of
the deceased (5 dependents)
71,808/-
Pranay Sethi(supra)
4.
Net annual income on which claimants were
dependent
2,15,424/-
Pranay Sethi (supra)
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5.
Add future prospects @ 20% since deceased was
aged about 73 years
43,085/-
Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle
Rules,1998
6.
Total annual dependency of claimants on deceased

2,58,509/-
Rule 220-A of UP Motor Vehicle
Rules,1998
7.
Multiplier applied since age of deceased was
about 73 years
5
Second Schedule of the Act
8.
Total loss of dependency to the claimants
2,58,509X5=12,92,545/-
Second Schedule of the Act
9.
Loss of consortium @Rs.40,000/- each
(5 claimants)
40,000X5=2,00,000/-
Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable (supra)
10.
Loss of estate
15,000/-
As awarded by the tribunal
11.
Funeral Expenses
15,000/-
As awarded by the tribunal
12.
Total compensation
15,22,545/-

20. In this way, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,22,545/- 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 vehicle No.UP-21-BK-5747.

21. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the tribunal dated
12.07.2024 is modified to the above extent.

22. If any amount has been paid by the insurance company previously, then it 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.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1310
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3821 of 2011

Smt. Jyoti & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Neha Khatri & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 20% attributed to the deceased was
sustainable;
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement with respect to (a)
computation of income including allowances, (b) future prospects, (c) deduction towards personal expenses,
(d) non-pecuniary heads, and (e) effect of compassionate appointment and pension.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Evidence: