( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO No.128 of 2019 Reserved on 17.07.2025 Decided on: 28th July, 2025 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant versus Neha Mehra and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate for respondent No.5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MAC Petition No.7/2018. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimants’) had filed petition under Section 166 of the Act for compensation on account of death of Gaurav Mehra in an accident involving motor vehicle i.e. car No.PB- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) 02PD-2570 owned by respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’) and driven by respondent No.6 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’). 3. The appellant herein was the insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. The accident had taken place on 26.05.2017 at place Chuwala near Tundi, Tehsil Bhatiyat District Chamba, H.P., when the vehicle had rolled down into a deep gorge. 5. The cause of death was attributed the rash and negligent driving of the driver. FIR No.49 of 2017 was registered against the driver at Police Station, Chamba on 26.05.2017 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. 6. The claimants had claimed that the deceased was a businessman aged 29 years at the time of accident. The monthly earning of deceased was stated to be Rs.24,000/- per month. 7. The claimants are the wife, minor children and father of deceased. All of them claimed to be dependent on the deceased. 8. The petition was contested by the owner, driver and insurer. 9. The owner and driver admitted the factum of accident, however, denied the cause of accident to be the rash 3 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) and negligent driving of the driver. It was claimed that the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the insurer at the time of accident. 10. The insurer raised objections that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy of insurance; the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and the deceased had hired the vehicle, which was not permissible in terms of the policy of insurance. 11. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 18.06.2018:- “1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of death of Shri Gaurav Mehra due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.PB-02PD-2570 (Hyundai Car 1-10) by its driver-respondent No.3 on 26.5.2017 at about 1.15 PM at place Chuwala near Tundi, Tehsil Bhattiyat, District Chamba, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, as to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR1 4. Whether respondent No.3 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR1 5. Whether the offending vehicle was not being driven in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR1 6. Whether the insured had breached the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR1 4 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) 7. Whether the petitioners have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands, as alleged? OPR2&3. 8. Relief. 12. Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas, all other issues were answered in negative. Learned Tribunal held the claimants to be entitled to Rs.49,08,400/- as compensation. Out of the total assessed compensation, Rs.48,38,400/- have been assessed towards loss of dependency, rupees 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and rupees 15,000/- each for the loss of estate and funeral expenses. In addition, interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded on the compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit. Litigation expenses have also been quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 13. The compensation amount has been apportioned by the learned Tribunal in the ratio of 40:20:20:20 between claimants No.1 to 4. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 15. Mr.Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer has contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was highly excessive. He has challenged the assessment of monthly income of deceased by the Tribunal. 5 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) It has also been contended that the father of the deceased was not dependent and hence, he was not entitled for any compensation. Since, according to the insurer, the father of deceased was not dependent on him, the amount on account of personal expenses should have been calculated @ 1/3rd of the income of the deceased in view the mandate in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the award. It has been contended on behalf of the claimants that the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced as all the dependents were entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium, in terms of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). 17. Learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased @ Rs.24,000/-. The deceased being a self- employed businessman, has also been held entitled to increase @ 40% on account of loss of future prospects. Taking the number of dependents as four, deduction on account of personal expenses of deceased has been made @ 1/4th of the income. Accordingly, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly dependency as Rs.25,200/-. Multiplier of 16 was 6 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) applied and thus, the total loss of dependency has been assessed @ Rs.48,38,400/-(25,200X12X16). 18. Learned Tribunal has based its findings with respect to income of deceased primarily on the basis of testimony of claimant No.1 (wife of deceased) as PW-1. In addition, the Income Tax Returns of deceased for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 have also been taken into account. 19. Learned counsel for the insurer has pointed out that though learned Tribunal has made reference to Income Tax Returns of deceased Ext.PW-4/A to Ext.PW-4/C, but the assessment has been made merely on hypothesis, without considering the contents of the Income Tax Returns. 20. In order to test the argument of learned counsel for the insurer, it is necessary to scan through the contents of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of deceased proved on record as Ext.PW-4/A to Ext.PW-4/C. As per the said ITRs, in the year 2014-15, the gross income of deceased from all sources was Rs.2,48,560/-. In the next year 2015-16, the gross income was reflected as Rs.3,18,130/- and in 2016-17, the ITR reflected the total income of deceased as Rs.2,82,768/-. 21. During the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the income of deceased has been shown from the sources of 7 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) income which can be said to be regular in nature i.e. from business and agriculture. In the year 2016-17, out of total income of Rs.2,82,768/-, an amount of Rs.1,95,528/- has been shown as a long-term capital gain. After deducting this amount, the income on account of profit and gains from business has been reflected as Rs.87,125/-. 22. The income from long term capital gain cannot be considered as a regular income, thus, the income for the year 2016-17 can be taken only as Rs.87,125/-. 23. In Malarvizhi and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another 2020 (4) SCC 228, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the reliance on ITRs being statutory document, for assessing the annual income. In Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Vibhor Fialok and another, Civil Appeal No(s). 1337-1338 of 2019decided on 18.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further approved the ITRs as credible source of evidence and further the average of ITRs filed by the claimants have been considered for determining the monthly income of the claimants. 24. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition, the average annual income of deceased on the basis of ITRs Ext.PW-4/A to Ext.PW-4/C comes to Rs.2,17,938/- and the 8 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) monthly income on such basis can be assessed at Rs.18,161/-. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), the enhancement @ 40% on account of loss of future prospects is to be applied, which makes the monthly income of deceased at Rs.25,426/-. 25. The contention raised on behalf of the insurer that father was not dependent on the deceased needs rejection for the reason that there is no evidence to such effect. The only fact that the father of deceased used to help the deceased in his business will not prove that the father was not dependent on the son. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the father had an independent source of income and hence was not dependent on the deceased. 26. The number of dependents of deceased being 4, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the monthly income of deceased towards his personal expenses. By applying the same criteria, the monthly dependency will be Rs.19,070/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.20,000/- per month. The multiplier of 16 has also rightly been applied as the age of deceased was proved to be 30 years. Thus, the total loss of dependency will be Rs.20,000x12x 16=Rs.38,40,000/-. 27. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the wife of deceased only, 9 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) whereas, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, all the dependents are entitled for compensation @ 40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’. The compensation on account of loss of estate and funeral charges has rightly been awarded by the learned Tribunal @ Rs.15,000/-. 28. What has been missed out is the increase/enhancement to be made on the compensation under the conventional heads @ 10% after every three years as per dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the claimants will also be entitled to enhancement of Rs.32,000/- under this head. 29. Though the claimants have not filed any independent or cross appeal for enhancement, yet keeping in view the mandate in Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another 2011 (14) SCC 639, the balance can be maintained by this Court by allowing the permissible enhancements under the other heads, in the cases where the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be reduced. 10 ( 2025:HHC:24440-DB ) 30. In result, on re-calculation, the claimants are held entitled to the following amount of compensation:- Sr.No. Head Amount 1. Compensation on account of loss of dependency. 20000x12x16=38,40,000/- 2. Loss of consortium 4x40000=1,60,000/- 3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 4. Funeral charges 15,000/- 5. Enhancement @ 10% after every three years 32,000/- Total 40,62,000/- 31. In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Similarly, there will be no change in the apportionment as made by the learned Tribunal. 32. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MAC Petition No.7/2018 shall stand modified to the extent as detailed hereinabove. 33. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. 34. Record be sent back forthwith. July 28, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (naveen) Judge