Family Pension Cannot Be Treated As Income Of Deceased For Determining Loss Of Dependency: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that family pension received by dependents after the death of a deceased in a motor accident cannot be treated as part of the deceased's income for determining loss of dependency, though it also cannot be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimants.

Justice Parmod Goyal said, "The family pension received by deceased has got no relation with the accident and resultant death on account of accident and therefore it was rightly held not liable to be deducted for the compensation awarded on account of loss of dependency. However, similarly the family pension cannot be treated as income of deceased for determining loss of dependency."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated July 9, 2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, which had granted a total compensation of ₹77,24,440 with interest @7.5% per annum to the wife, children, and parents of deceased Satheesh Kumar, who died in a road accident on October 2, 2020.

The accident occurred in October 2, 2020, involving a Bolero and a Mini Bus driven by the deceased, Satheesh Kumar M. The Tribunal had found the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bolero and accordingly held the insurer liable to pay compensation.

The Insurance Company preferred the present appeal primarily on the quantum of compensation, challenging the Tribunal's findings on two counts —

Age of the deceased was wrongly taken as 40 years instead of 41 years 6 months, leading to the application of a higher multiplier (15 instead of 14) and an incorrect grant of 40% future prospects instead of 25%.

Addition of pension income of ₹38,544 received by the deceased after retirement was erroneous while computing loss of dependency.

The appellant relied on Vishavjit Singh & Ors. v. Cholamandalam & Anr. (SLP (C) [No. 13442 of 2020, decided on 21.05.2025] to contend that pension cannot be treated as part of the deceased's income for this purpose.

The Court noted that the deceased's date of birth was March 30, 1979, and the accident took place on October 2, 2020, making him 41 years, 6 months, and 2 days old at the time of death. Thus, he fell within the age group of 41–45 years, attracting a multiplier of 14 and 25% addition towards future prospects as per Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

It was further observed that the deceased, an ex-Air Force personnel who retired just two days before the accident, was not shown to be engaged in any further employment. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in treating him as a highly skilled worker with a notional income of ₹12,000 per month.

However, the core issue before the Court was whether the pension amount of ₹38,544 per month should be added to the deceased's income for calculating loss of dependency.

The Court held that while family pension cannot be deducted from compensation, it also cannot be treated as income of the deceased for computing dependency. The family pension received by the dependents has no causal connection with the accident and therefore cannot be added to the deceased's income.

Mr. Preet Harinder Singh Pannu, Advocate For appellant.

Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate and

Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Priya PS and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 426

Click here to read order