The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited challenging a compensation award of ₹44.63 lakh to the family of a deceased practising advocate. The Court held that there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's annual income based on his Income Tax Return (ITR).
Justice Harsh Bunger observed that the deceased advocate's professional growth, increasing experience at the Bar and progressive income tax records supported the Tribunal's decision to consider his annual income at ₹4,16,990.
Background
The case arose from a fatal road accident on March 8, 2024, near Shivalik College in the Binjalpur area of Mullana, Ambala district. Munish Kumar Gulati was travelling from Delhi towards his village Rasulpur when a car allegedly hit his vehicle from behind. Following the collision, his car went off the road and struck a tree, resulting in fatal injuries.
His family subsequently approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, seeking compensation. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
While calculating compensation, the Tribunal considered Gulati's annual income as ₹4,16,990, based on his ITR for the assessment year 2022-23. It awarded a total compensation of ₹44,63,095, along with interest at 6% per annum.
Aggrieved by the award dated July 15, 2026, National Insurance Company Limited approached the High Court.
The insurance company argued that the Tribunal had wrongly relied upon only one Income Tax Return to determine the deceased's annual income. According to the insurer, the Tribunal should have calculated the average income from the deceased's last three years of ITRs instead.
No other argument was raised on behalf of the insurance company.
Justice Harsh Bunger referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Others v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others, decided on July 1, 2026.
The Supreme Court had clarified that income assessment for compensation purposes cannot follow a rigid formula. For self-employed individuals, income from up to the previous three years' ITRs may be considered, alongside the nature of the profession, business growth and other relevant circumstances.
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that Munish Kumar Gulati was practising as an advocate before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and was approximately 36 years old at the time of his death. His income tax records for the preceding three years reflected a progressive trend.
The Court also highlighted the nature of legal practice and the time required for advocates to establish themselves professionally.
The Bench observed:
"Keeping in view the parameters prescribed in para 19 of judgment in case of Rashmirekha (supra), it is observed that undoubtedly, at the beginning of practice, a lawyer has to struggle to establish his reputation and to increase his practice. The professional life of a lawyer, unlike cases of Government servants, is a life of hardship and of struggle. The fruit of his labour come to him during the course of time. His practice also depends on various factors which may be beyond his control. It is undisputable that experience at Bar is an asset to a practising Advocate and enlarges scope of practice."
The Court further took judicial notice of the increase in litigation over the last three decades and observed that growing economic prosperity and clients' increased paying capacity had also benefited the legal profession.
While examining the deceased's financial records and professional circumstances, Justice Harsh Bunger found no reason to disturb the Tribunal's assessment of his annual income.
The Court concluded:
"Thus, considering the fact that the deceased-Munish Kumar Gulati was a practising Advocate in this High Court and taking judicial notice of the fact that in the last three decades, the litigation has been on the increase coupled with the fact that with the increase in the paying capacity of the clients, the lawyers have also benefitted therefrom and even the income tax returns (ITRs) of last three years of deceased-Munish Kumar Gulati (prior to his death) reflects progressive trend; I see no reason which may warrant interference in the assessment of yearly income of the deceased-Munish Kumar Gulati by learned Tribunal below."
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and closed all pending applications, if any.
Case Details:
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Anju Gulati and Others
Case Number: FAO-5438-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Harsh Bunger
Decision Date: September 30, 2026
