Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation in Constable’s Death Case; Holds Pension Cannot Be Deducted While Calculating Loss of Dependency
Case Name: Krishna and Others v. Rajesh and Others
Date of Judgment: 10 February 2026
Citation: FAO-2920-2003
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that pensionary benefits cannot be deducted from the salary of a deceased employee while computing loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that pension is a statutory right arising from services rendered and has no nexus with compensation payable for accidental death. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was accordingly enhanced.
Summary: The appeal was preferred by the wife, children and parents of deceased Sombir, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 22.08.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of a dumper bearing registration No. HR-38-B/6517. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide award dated 03.12.2002, granted compensation of ₹6,27,000/-. The appellants sought enhancement of the said amount.
The Tribunal had assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹5,072/- after deducting ₹2,200/- towards pension from his admitted salary of ₹7,272/- per month. It applied a multiplier of 15 and deducted one-third towards personal expenses.
Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting the pension component, failed to add future prospects, applied an incorrect multiplier, and wrongly deducted one-third instead of one-fourth towards personal expenses. They also sought appropriate amounts under conventional heads in light of settled Supreme Court precedents.
The High Court found that deduction of pension from the salary was legally impermissible. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgments in Hanumantharaju B (dead) by LR v. M Akram Pasha & Anr., Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, the Court reiterated that pension, provident fund, insurance and similar benefits are not “pecuniary advantages” liable for deduction, as they have no correlation with compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court recalculated the compensation by taking the full salary of ₹7,272/- per month, adding 50% towards future prospects in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, applying multiplier 16 considering the age of 33 years, and deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses as the deceased left behind five dependents. It also awarded compensation under conventional heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.
The total compensation was reassessed at ₹16,60,752/-, resulting in enhancement of ₹10,33,752/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Decision: The appeal was allowed. The appellants were held entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹10,33,752/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Apportionment and liability were to remain as per the original award.