2025:UHC:9165 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.120 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 7. 2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned M.A.C.T./Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 20 of 2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and then recover from the owner of the insured vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, despite due service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle failed to appear before the learned Tribunal, as a result of which the proceedings were conducted ex-parte against him. It is contended that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in directing the appellant–Insurance Company to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that no driving licence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was produced before the learned Tribunal. He draws attention to the evidence adduced by the appellant, including the General Diary entry of the Investigating Police Team, which records that the accident occurred due to the collision with a tractor–trolley and not with the alleged Innova car. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in enhancing the notional income by adding ₹1,000/- per month as Dearness Allowance to the minimum wages prescribed 2025:UHC:9165 for an unskilled labourer which, according to the appellant, is impermissible in law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 7 submits that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law, and therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 5. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in enhancing the monthly income of the deceased by adding ₹1,000/- as Dearness Allowance to the notified minimum wages. As per the notification issued by the Labour Department applicable at the relevant time, the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer were ₹8,213/- per month. Hence, the same is to be adopted for computation of compensation. The addition of a notional Dearness Allowance, without statutory sanction or evidentiary basis, is not permissible. 6. In Sarla Verma’s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court standardized the method for deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased based on the number of dependents and also laid down the appropriate multipliers. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, while affirming the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (Supra), further crystallized the law by adding future prospects to the income of the deceased and standardizing compensation under conventional heads. Thus, both judgments together ensure uniformity, consistency, and fairness in awarding just compensation. 2025:UHC:9165 7. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants is recalculated, the deceased’s monthly income of ₹8,213, annualized to ₹98,556, is reduced by one- fifth towards personal expenses (₹19,711), resulting in an annual contribution to the family of ₹78,845; adding 40% towards future prospects (₹31,538) gives a total annual income of ₹1,10,383, which, multiplied by 16 as the multiplier, amounts to loss of dependency of ₹17,66,128; adding consortium (₹40,000 × 7 = ₹2,80,000), loss of estate (₹15,000), and funeral expenses (₹15,000), the total compensation payable to the claimants is assessed at ₹20,76,128/-, in place of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 8. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed, and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above, and the appellant– Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the modified award within six weeks from the date of this judgment, after adjusting any amount already deposited, while all other findings of the learned Tribunal on issues of liability and recovery rights are affirmed, being in accordance with law. 9. The statutory amount, if deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for adjustment towards the award amount. The balance amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the claimants as per the directions of the Tribunal. (Alok Mahra, J.) 14.10.2025 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536 5445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D45 4C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.14 17:47:05 +05'30'