HC cuts payout to kin of ex-Air Force man by 55.8 lakh

Justice Parmod Goyal holds Tribunal erred in applying age, multiplier and future prospects; ICICI Lombard’s appeal allowed

Punjab and Haryana HC cuts payout to kin of ex-Air Force man who died in road accident by Rs 55.8 lakh

Justice Parmod Goyal reduced the payout from Rs 77,24,440 to Rs 21,43,000 while allowing the appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (File Photo)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has slashed by over Rs 55.81 lakh the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased retired Air Force personnel in a motor accident case, ruling that pension cannot be treated as income for calculating loss of dependency.

Justice Parmod Goyal reduced the payout from Rs 77,24,440 to Rs 21,43,000 while allowing the appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. The insurer had challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s July 9 award on grounds of age miscalculation, incorrect multiplier and wrongful inclusion of pension.

The case arose from a road accident on the intervening night of October 2–3, 2020, near Khanpur Kolian on GT Road, Kurukshetra. The deceased, 41-year-old Satheesh Kumar M, had retired from the Indian Air Force just two days earlier and was driving a mini bus when it collided with a Bolero allegedly driven rashly. He was survived by his wife, two minor children and his parents.

Story continues below this ad

The Kurukshetra tribunal had treated his age as 40 years, added 40% future prospects, and included his monthly pension of Rs 38,544 to fix a compensation of Rs 77.24 lakh with 7.5% interest.

ICICI Lombard, represented by advocate Preet Harinder Singh Pannu, argued that documentary evidence showed Satheesh was 41 years and six months old at the time of death and that the correct multiplier should be 14 instead of 15, with future prospects limited to 25% as per Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) and Pranay Sethi (2017). The insurer also contended that pension could not be treated as earned income.

Rejecting the Tribunal’s reasoning, Justice Goyal observed, “The deceased has to be treated in the age group of 41 to 45 and accordingly multiplier as well as future prospects have to be awarded… multiplier of 14 and future prospects of 25% on his monthly income.”

On the inclusion of pension, the court held that “the family pension received by deceased has got no relation with the accident and resultant death… the family pension cannot be treated as income of deceased for determining loss of dependency.”

Story continues below this ad

Upholding the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs 12,000 per month (minimum wages for a highly skilled worker), the court recalculated the compensation as Rs 21.43 lakh, including Rs 18.9 lakh for loss of dependency and Rs 2.33 lakh under conventional heads. The reduced amount will carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The ruling underscores that pension cannot be factored into income for accident compensation unless there is evidence of post-retirement employment and that official age records must be strictly followed.