HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Mac App No. 12/2022 Date of pronouncement: 11.02.2026. Date of uploading: 13.02.2026. 1. Vikas Chander Mohan, Age 27 years 2. Harshit Gorka Age 1 year (5months) S/o Vikas Chander R/o Sial Sallan Tehsil Udhampur. Appellant No. 2 being minor is represented by appellant no. 1, who being his father is his natural guardian .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate v/s 1. Harsimran Singh, S/o Karnal Singh, R/o Omara Morh, PTC road, Badali, Udhampur. 2. Karnail Singh,S/o Gurbachan Singh, R/o Rakh Badali, Tehsil/District Udhampur. 3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Hotel TRG Building, Opp. Bahu Plaza Head Complex, Jammu .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 1. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved, there is hardly any necessity to send the parties to mediation and, therefore, the case is taken up for consideration. 2. This appeal, for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur [“the Tribunal”] in Sr. No. 07 2 terms of its award dated 25.02.2017, is filed by one-Vikas Chander Mohan and Harshit Gorka, a minor, represented by Mr. Vikas Chander Mohan. 3. The enhancement of compensation is sought on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated that the appellants-claimants had sufficiently proved the monthly income of the deceased, namely, Pallavi Watts as Rs. 26,250/- per month on account of salary, she was receiving while working as PGT in Science in K.V. No. 1, Udhampur on contractual basis. 4. It is submitted that the Tribunal ignored the aforesaid evidence and instead took the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month on the ground that the salaried income, which the deceased was getting was in respect of a temporary employment. 5. It is, thus, submitted that, but for the aforesaid error committed by the Tribunal, the appellants would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs. 48,51,539/-, which would have been the just compensation payable to the appellants, having regard to the monthly income of the deceased proved as Rs. 26,250/-. 6. The stand of the respondent-Insurance Company represented by Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate is that the salaried income, which the deceased was getting at the time of her death was only in respect of a temporary employment and, therefore, could not be said to be certain income, which she would have earned in future as well. It is submitted that keeping in view the temporariness and uncertainty of employment of the deceased, the Tribunal was justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month. 3 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring the evidence on record with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. 8. Indisputably, the deceased was highly educated having post- graduation in Science and employed as PGT (Science) in K.V. No. 1, Udhampur though on temporary basis. She was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 26,250/-. 9. It is true that there is always uncertainty in the temporary employment yet the fact remains that a person who is post-graduate in Science and has already been serving in a reputed institution like K.V. No. 1, Udhampur as PGT would have the potential of earning more in future. The Tribunal has ignored the aspect of qualification and capability of the deceased to earn more in future. Under these circumstances, the evidence led by the claimants to prove the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been accepted. 10. It is not disputed that the deceased, at the time of her death, was employed with K.V. No. 1, Udhampur as PGT and was receiving a salary of Rs. 26,250/-. This evidence has also not been disputed by the Tribunal. 11. Be that as it may, I see no reason or justification to ignore the cogent evidence of the claimants on record to prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 26,250/-. 12. The Tribunal has, thus, gone clearly wrong in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4 13. In view of the aforesaid, the claimants are found entitled to enhancement of compensation which should be assessed by taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 26,250/-. 14. In view of the aforesaid the total amount of compensation that would be payable to the claimants would be as under: - 1. Monthly income Rs. 26,250/- 2. 40% enhancement on account of future prospects Rs. 10,500/- 3. Monthly income after enhancement Rs. 36,750/- 4. Annual income ( 36750 x 12) Rs. 4,41,000/- 5. Income exempt from income tax Rs. 2,50,000/- 6. Taxable income Rs. 1,91,000/- 7. Income tax at the rate of 10% Rs. 19,100/- 8. Net annual income after deduction of income tax Rs. 4,21,900/- 9. One third deduction on account of personal expenses Rs. 1,40,633/- 10. Final annual income after all deductions Rs. 2,81,267/- 11. Multiplier applicable to the age of deceased 17 12. Compensation payable on account of loss of dependency Rs. 47,81,533/- 13. Loss of consortium Rs. 4,0000/- each Rs. 80,000/- 14. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 15. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 16. Total compensation payable Rs. 48,91,533/- The amount shall be payable @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 15. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount already received is to the tune of Rs. 14,25,000/- and the balance amount which shall now be payable to the claimants is to the tune of Rs. 34,66,533/- alongwith interest. 5 17. The Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount in the Registry of this court within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. Upon receipt of the balance amount, the same shall be released in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award. (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 11.02.2026 Manik