The High Court clarified that the correct multiplier for fatal accident compensation should be based on the last completed age of the deceased, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sarla Verma and Shashikala. It also upheld that posthumously filed income tax returns are not inherently unreliable if corroborated by other returns. This ruling strictly follows precedent and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | AO/196/2019 of IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD. Vs SMT. ARUNA GARG |
| CNR | UKHC010070222019 |
| Date of Registration | 14-05-2019 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and subordinate courts under Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and follows Supreme Court precedent (Sarla Verma, Shashikala, Pranay Sethi) |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The multiplier must be applied based on the last completed year of the deceased’s age, as per Supreme Court precedent. Posthumous income tax returns may be relied upon if corroborated by earlier returns showing a trend of rising income. The appellate court will not interfere with factual findings of the Tribunal, such as contributory negligence, unless perverse or contrary to evidence. The compensation awarded should be fair, reasonable, and in accordance with principles of “just compensation” elucidated by the Supreme Court. The approach to income assessment can incorporate reasonable guesswork, not requiring perfect arithmetic. The Tribunal’s award in the instant case was found to be judicious and balanced. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Settled principles for determining multiplier and income assessment; standards for appellate interference with factual findings; principle of “just compensation” under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The claim arose from a fatal motor accident. The deceased’s age was under dispute; the Tribunal took the age as 50 and multiplier as 13. The insurance company challenged computation of income based on a posthumous filed ITR and argued for contributory negligence and a lower multiplier. The Tribunal found against contributory negligence and relied on documentary evidence for income estimation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within Uttarakhand’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and may be cited in Supreme Court or other jurisdictions for persuasive value |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the correct multiplier is determined by the last completed age year of the deceased, not fractional or ongoing age.
- Posthumously filed income tax returns can be accepted for income computation if corroborated by prior authentically filed returns showing income trend.
- Compensation calculation remains within the discretion of the Tribunal as long as principles of just compensation are followed.
- Findings on contributory negligence are primarily factual and will not be disturbed in appeal unless shown to be perverse or clearly erroneous.
- Appellate intervention under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is limited to cases of grave error or factual perversity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The High Court assessed whether the Tribunal had correctly applied legal principles in awarding compensation for a fatal motor accident. Relying primarily on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sarla Verma and Shashikala, the Court held that the multiplier must be fixed according to the last completed year of age, based on documentary age proof. The Court explained that income assessment can rely on a reasonable estimate using documentary evidence, such as income tax returns, and the mere fact that an ITR is filed posthumously does not by itself make it unreliable, especially if supported by previous years’ returns showing a plausible increase in income.
With respect to the argument of contributory negligence, the Court found that the Tribunal had thoroughly considered the evidence and that its finding of exclusive negligence against the insured vehicle’s driver could not be interfered with in appeal absent perversity or lack of evidence. The Court reconfirmed that the scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not extend to re-appreciation of facts unless the Tribunal’s findings are manifestly incorrect. The judgment explicitly follows the approach in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi for “just compensation,” emphasizing fairness over strict calculative precision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Insurance Company):
- Tribunal erred by failing to deduct the tax component from the deceased’s assessed income.
- Income tax return for AY 2015–16 was filed posthumously and reported income much higher than prior years; such return should not have been relied upon.
- Tribunal applied an incorrect multiplier (13); based on the deceased’s age, as per Sarla Verma, the multiplier ought to be 11.
- Tribunal did not consider contributory negligence of both drivers, so compensation should have been reduced.
Respondent (Claimants):
- Deceased was running 50 years at the time of accident, not completed 51 years; multiplier of 13 as per Sarla Verma and Shashikala is correct.
- Posthumous ITR reflected genuine income, corroborated by previous returns.
- Tribunal correctly found no contributory negligence after considering evidence.
Factual Background
The case involved a fatal accident for which compensation was claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased. The insurance company challenged the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had computed income based partly on a posthumous income tax return and used a multiplier of 13, taking the deceased’s age as 50. The issues raised included the reliability of the posthumously filed ITR, the correct multiplier based on the deceased’s age, and allegations of contributory negligence. The Tribunal found against contributory negligence and upheld the claimants’ case based on available documentary evidence.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment analyzed Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, outlining the limits of appellate interference—specifically, that factual findings on negligence or quantum will not be disturbed unless perverse or contrary to the record. It relied upon judicial interpretations of compensation computation such as those in Sarla Verma (multiplier based on last completed age) and Pranay Sethi (principle of just compensation not contingent on perfect arithmetic accuracy).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, changes to evidence requirements, or suo motu directions were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and reiterates established Supreme Court law on the calculation of multipliers and methodology for income valuation in fatal accident compensation cases.