2025:UHC:8345 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.327 of 2022 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate for the respondent no.1. 2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount awarded by learned M.A.C.T./Ist Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 10.06.2022 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 33 of 2020. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, in the midnight of 17.01.2020, the husband of the claimant/respondent no.1, namely, Ravi Kumar Dogra alongwith his relative Daan Singh was coming from Kashipur to Jaitpur Ghosi on a motorcycle, bearing registration no.UK04-F-5263; that as they reached the Bahla Bridge on Bajpur Road, a little beyond the I.T.I. Police Station, Ravi Kumar stopped the motorcycle in order to urinate; that a Truck, bearing registration No.U.P.21-B.N.-1586, which was driven by the driver at a high speed, recklessly came there from Bajpur side and collided with the motorcycle, due to which Ravi Kumar Dogra and Daan Singh sustained grievous injuries and, ultimately, both of them succumbed to death. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, at the time of incident, the salary of Ravi Kumar Dogra (deceased)/ 2025:UHC:8345 husband of claimant no.1 was ₹14,000/- per month, however, learned Tribunal has erred in considering the salary of the deceased as ₹12,442.80 per month. He further submits that future prospects have not been awarded to the claimants as per the law. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Chandrakala and another Vs. Dilipkumar M.A. and another in M.F.A. No.1662 of 2023, decided on 02.07.2024. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the salary of the deceased was ₹12,442.80 per month, which was proved by the Secretary of Madhya Uttar Pradesh Suraksha Guards Shramik Utthan Punarvas Sahakari Shram Contract Samiti Ltd., Gajraula and he has also proved that the deceased was employed through their Samiti as Fireman at I.G.L. Factory Kashipur. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguishable on facts. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid down clear guidelines for determining compensation in motor accident claims. The Court held that the age of the deceased is crucial in calculating the compensation, particularly for deciding the appropriate multiplier. Paragraph 2025:UHC:8345 no.59.4 of the said judgment is extracted below: “59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 7. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of incident was 35 years and the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% of the established income as future prospects, as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others (supra). 8. In view of the guidelines issued by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order passed by learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity, which may warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order fails and is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 18.09.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98 7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.09.18 17:13:38 +05'30'