The High Court of Uttarakhand held that incentive payments, such as occasional or performance-based bonuses, cannot be included in the computation of income for motor accident compensation unless there is cogent and credible evidence proving they are a fixed, regular part of salary. The Court followed the Supreme Court’s settled position in Triveni Kodkany v. Air India Ltd., reaffirmed and applied the Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance principles for conventional heads. This decision has binding precedential value within Uttarakhand for future compensation calculations.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | AO/44/2025 of BASANTI DEVI Vs THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY |
| CNR | UKHC010019372025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms tribunal’s approach (with modification for consortium) |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation; Personal Injury Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether unproven or irregular incentive payments can be included as “income” for compensation calculation under the Motor Vehicles Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The Court held that only those income components which are regular, proven, and form an integral part of the salary package can be included in compensation calculations. Mere assertions or unproven claims for incentive payments, unsupported by documentary evidence, are not admissible as “income”. The Supreme Court authority in Triveni Kodkany v. Air India Ltd. was relied upon, emphasizing the need for incentives/ESOPs to constitute a fixed part of remuneration payable as a matter of right. For consortium, the Court followed the Magma General Insurance and Pranay Sethi principles, stipulating ₹40,000 per dependent with a 10% enhancement every three years under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Arbitral Tribunal’s finding excluding incentives was affirmed. The original award was modified only to the extent of updating the consortium amount. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on Supreme Court precedent requiring cogent evidence for including incentives; set quantum for consortium per the Supreme Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Deceased (26) died falling from a bus due to driver’s negligence. He was employed at goodwill construction, claimed salary plus ₹1 lakh incentive. Dispute was whether incentive formed integral part of income, supported only by oral evidence of co-owner and one bank transfer. Tribunal excluded incentive for lack of proof; consortium components for dependents also disputed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals, as well as the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Not explicitly distinguished, but declines to follow claims unsupported by robust evidence |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that performance-based or irregular incentives cannot be included in income for compensation calculations unless proved by cogent documentary evidence.
- Tribunal’s finding excluding such incentives was affirmed in line with Supreme Court precedent (Triveni Kodkany).
- Consortium amount clarified at ₹40,000 per dependent with 10% enhancement every three years, following Pranay Sethi.
- Oral evidence alone regarding incentives, without payroll documents or consistent records, is insufficient.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court assessed whether the deceased’s alleged incentive component formed part of his regular income, examining both oral and documentary evidence.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Triveni Kodkany v. Air India Ltd. (2021) 19 SCC 214, holding that only proven, regular, and reliably documented salary components (not speculative or performance-based incentives) can be included in compensation.
- The Court found only a one-time bank transfer and oral testimony, no salary slips, regular statements, or records of continued incentive payments.
- Affirmed the Tribunal’s exclusion of the claimed incentive as unproved and speculative.
- For the consortium, the Court relied on Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, United India Insurance v. Satinder Kaur (2020) 11 SCC 1, and Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to direct ₹40,000 per dependent, with incremental enhancement.
- Only modified the award amount for consortium to match these authorities; in all other respects, the Tribunal’s calculations were upheld.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tribunal erred in not considering the ₹1,00,000 incentive as an integral part of the deceased’s income.
- The incentive was regularly earned and proven by the oral testimony of P.W.-3 and a related bank transfer.
- The Tribunal misread the evidence, and the denial of the incentive component was unsustainable and contrary to law.
- The deceased was in a permanent job; income (including incentives) would have grown over time.
Respondent (Insurance Company)
- No cogent or credible evidence to prove incentive payments were regular or integral to salary.
- Only an isolated assertion and one bank transfer, no consistent documentary record (salary slips, payment records).
- Tribunal was correct in discounting unproven incentive claims.
- Enhancement based on speculative incentives would result in unfair enrichment.
- Relied on Supreme Court’s Triveni Kodkany judgment for strict evidence standard.
Factual Background
On 18 February 2022, the deceased, Jaswant Singh Nayal, aged 26, was travelling by private bus to Hisar, Haryana. As he attempted to alight, the driver accelerated, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of his family, employed at Goodwill Construction, and it was claimed he earned a regular salary plus periodic incentives. His family sought enhanced compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; a key dispute was whether these claimed incentives should be included in assessing his income for compensation. The Tribunal excluded the incentive, leading to this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 relevant to the assessment of “income” for compensation.
- Applied Supreme Court standards regarding conventional heads of compensation (Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance), holding consortium at ₹40,000 per dependent subject to triennial enhancement of 10%.
- Followed precedent requiring “cogent, reliable, and regular” evidence to include incentive in income; mere one-time payments or unsubstantiated claims do not meet statutory requirements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was delivered; the judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural principles or practices announced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies and reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent on the evidentiary standard for inclusion of incentives in income and consortium compensation calculations.