Allahabad High Court

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYversusSMT. SHIVANI GUPTA AND OTHERS

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: PANKAJ BHATIA

Holding

The High Court modified the MACT award, incorporating future prospects, non‑pecuniary damages, and a revised multiplier, thereby upholding the claimants' entitlement but altering the amount.

Summary

The appellant National Insurance Company appealed the award of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in favor of the family of the deceased Sudeep Gupta, who died in a road accident. The Tribunal had based the award on the deceased's declared annual income of Rs.2,25,231 and applied a 1/5 deduction and a multiplier of 17, but omitted future earning prospects and non‑pecuniary damages. The High Court held that while the income figure was correctly accepted, the Tribunal erred in excluding future prospects and non‑pecuniary damages, and in using an incorrect multiplier. Accordingly, the Court modified the award by adding a 40% uplift for future prospects, applying a multiplier of 16, and including amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium as per precedent cases. The revised total compensation of Rs.43,15,644 was ordered to be paid with interest, and the apportionment among claimants was specified. The appeal was allowed and the cross‑objection disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT is excessive and liable to be set aside.
Whether future earning prospects and non‑pecuniary damages should be included in the compensation.
Whether the multiplier and deduction calculations applied by the Tribunal are correct.
Whether the apportionment of the revised compensation among the claimants is proper.

Subjects

motor accident
compensation
future earning prospects
non‑pecuniary damages
multiplier
loss of consortium
insurance claim
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
interest
RTGS

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1133 of 2010

National Insurance Company
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

Smt. Shivani Gupta And Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Rai, Yogendra Pal Singh

Court No. - 50
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard Shri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri
Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 01.02.2010
passed in M.A.C. No.182 of 2008.

Respondents have also filed a cross objection for enhancement of the
compensation.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased Sudeep Gupta was going on
his four wheeler WagonR when he met with an accident with Tata Sumo
Vehicle No.HP 18A 0344 which was being driven rashly and negligently
which resulted in the death of the deceased on 21.02.2008. Subsequently,
the claimants claiming to be family members namely wife, children,
mother and father of the deceased filed a claim petition alleging that the
deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of death and was a
contractor. While claiming compensation it was argued that for the
assessment year 2007 - 08 the income tax return of the deceased was filed
showing an income of Rs.2,25,231/- annually. The Tribunal accepted the
said income and after making deduction of 1/5th assessed the financial
loss and applying the multiplier of '17' awarded the compensation.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is
that the compensation is highly excessive and thus, liable to be set aside,
whereas counsel for the respondents argues that the future prospects and
the grant of non-pecuniary damages as decided by the Supreme Court in
FAFO No. 1133 of 2010
2

the cases of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.; 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.); Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr.; Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 decided
on 15.04.2009 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130, have not
been granted and the award should be modified.

5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, while awarding the
compensation the annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,25,231/- as per
the income tax returns. No evidence could be shown that the acceptance
of annual income was in any way erroneous, as such, the income of the
deceased has rightly been held at Rs.2,25,231/-. The Tribunal has,
however, erred in not including the future prospects on the said income
and non-grant of non-pecuniary damages.

6. In view thereof, the impugned award dated 01.02.2010 is modified and
the amount awarded shall re-work as under:

Sl. Compensation
Head
No. awarded
1. Annual income of the deceased Rs.2,25,231
Adding 40% towards future prospects in the
Rs.2,25,231 x 40% =
2. light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case
Rs.90,092
(supra)
3. Net yearly income Rs.3,15,323
Rs.3,15,323 x 1/5 =
Rs.63,064/-

After deduction:
4. Deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses
Rs.3,15,323 -
Rs.63,064 =
Rs.2,52,259/-

Rs.2,52,259 x 16 =
5. Applying multiplier of '16'
Rs.40,36,144/-

6. Amount under conventional heads: Rs.18,500 +
FAFO No. 1133 of 2010
3

(i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/-
Rs.18,500 +
(ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per
Rs.2,42,500 =
Pranay Sethi's case (supra)
(iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per person Rs.2,79,500/-
(Rs.48,500 x 5) as per Magma General
Insurance Company Limited (supra)
Rs.40,36,144
Total amount of compensation + Rs.2,79,500/-
7. (Sr.No.5 + Sr.No.6)
Rs. 43,15,644/-

7. The amount as recorded above shall be paid within a period of three
months from today alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
claim till actual payment/realisation and the amount already paid as
compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the
claimants.

8. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal
to be paid to the claimants.

9. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in the
account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details of
anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount shall
not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required to open
a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only, as has
been held by the Supreme Court in Para 9 of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)
No.7 of 2024 [In Re: Compensation amounts deposited with Motor Accident
Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts]; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 455 and in Para
17.1 of Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
318.

10. The apportionment of the compensation is to the following effect:

(i) 50% to claimant no.1;

(ii) 25% each to claimant nos.2 & 3;
FAFO No. 1133 of 2010
4

(iii) claimant nos.4 & 5 would be entitled to loss of consortium only
which is quantified at Rs.48,500/- per person.

11. Present appeal as well as cross objection stands disposed off in above
terms.

12. Lower Court Records, if received, shall be remitted to the Court
concerned.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
May 12, 2026
nishant

Digitally signed by :-
NISHANT MOHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…