[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 11.12.2025 vs Surinder Singh Tomor And on 6 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: MA No.517/2012 c/w
MA No. 518/2012 (MA No. 9900013/2012)
MA No. 520/2012
CCROS No.17/2013,
CCROS No. 18/2013
CCROS No. 19/2013
Reserved on: 11.12.2025
Pronounced on: 06.02.2026
Uploaded on:06.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced :Full
Union of India and others
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate
v/s
Surinder Singh Tomor and
another
Through: Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. Three claim petitions were decided by a common award dated
21.04.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in File No. 127/Claim
titled 'Urmila Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others', File No.
128/Claim titled 'Manoj Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others',
and File No. 129/Claim titled 'Surendra Singh Tomar and another Vs.
Union of India and others'.
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
2. Aggrieved of the said common award, both the respondents as well2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
as
the claimants in the claim petitions have assailed the same by filing
separate appeals and cross-appeals.
3. MA No. 517/2012 along with CCROS No. 19/2013 arises out of File
No. 129/Claim titled 'Surendra Singh Tomar and another Vs. Union of
India and others'; MA No. 518/2012 along with CCROS No. 18/2013
arises out of File No. 127/Claim titled 'Urmila Devi and others Vs
Union of India and others'; and MA No. 520/2013 along with CCROS
No. 17/2013 arises out of File No. 128/Claim titled 'Manoj Devi and
others Vs. Union of India and others'.
4. Since all the aforesaid appeals and cross-objections arise out of the
common award dated 21.04.2012, they were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
MA No.517/2012& CCROS No. 19/2013:
5. The appellants-Union of India have assailed the award passed in File
No. 129/Claim (Surendera Singh and another Vs. Union of India and
others) on the ground that the claimants were required to establish that
the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the military vehicle, but the claimants failed to prove the same
by any cogent evidence, and on the contrary, it stood proved by
appellants that the accident was an act of God, inasmuch as, the vehicle
in question was a specialised vehicle, and while giving a way to a vehicle
coming from the opposite direction, the road caved in, resulting in the
vehicle rolling down into a deep gorge. It is further stated by the
appellants that the deceased was Army personnel discharging sovereign
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
duties and, at the time of the accident, was part of a road-opening party
deployed for convoy protection. In such circumstances, it is urged that
the deceased was neither a passenger nor a third party within the
meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, and, therefore, the claim petition
itself was not maintainable. It is also contended that the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not only exorbitant but also
unjustified.
6. The claimants, in their cross-appeal, contend that the Tribunal has erred
in applying the multiplier by reducing it from 13 to 11. It is further
contended that the Tribunal has incorrectly deducted one-half of the
income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses.
Additionally, the grievance of the claimants is that no compensation has
been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection, and that the
compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also on the
lower side.
MA No. 518/2012 & CCROS No.18/2013
7. The appellants-Union of India have assailed the award passed in File
No. 127/Claim(Urmila Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others)
on the similar grounds as raised in MA No.517/2012.
8. The claimants, by way of cross-appeal, contend that the Tribunal
committed an error in applying the multiplier by reducing it from 14 to
12. It is further contended that inadequate compensation has been
awarded to the wife of the deceased on account of loss of consortium,
and that no compensation whatsoever has been awarded under the said
head in favour of the children of the deceased. It is also urged that the
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is on 2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
the
lower side and warrants appropriate enhancement.
MA No.520/2013 & CCROS No. 17/2013.
9. The appellants-Union of India have assailed the award passed in File
No. 128/Claim on the similar grounds as raised in MA No.517/2012.
10. The claimants, in their cross-appeal, contend that the Tribunal has erred
in applying the multiplier by reducing it from 17 to 15. It is also urged
that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is on
the lower side and calls for enhancement.
11. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the
contentions of the appellants, therefore, the impugned award deserves to
be set aside.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Arjun Bhatia, learned counsel for the claimants,
has argued that the Tribunal has erred in applying the appropriate
multiplier and that the compensation awarded is insufficient, particularly
under the head of loss of consortium, as well as other conventional
heads.
13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
14. It may be noted that the respondents-claimants in MA No. 517/2012
(Surendra Singh Tomar and another) filed a claim petition seeking
compensation on account of the death of their son, namely, Raju Singh
Tomar. In MA No. 518/2012 (Urmila Devi and others), the claimants
filed a claim petition for compensation on account of the death of Hav.
Arvind Singh, who was the husband of Urmila Devi, father of Jyoti
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
Kumari, Arti Kumari, and Nandni, and son of Urmila Devi, wife of Shiv
Nath Singh. In MA No. 520/2013 (Manoj Devi and others), the
claimants filed a claim petition for compensation on account of the death
of L/NK Rishi Dev, who was the husband of Manoj Devi, father of
Pratibha Yadav and Himanshu Yadav, and son of Gandhi Lal and Bimla
Devi.
15. All three deceased were serving in the Indian Army and, while travelling
in vehicle bearing No. 99R006343D from Ramban to Banihal, met with
an accident. It is contended by the claimants that the vehicle was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, as a result of which
he lost control, causing the vehicle to roll down into a deep gorge.
16. The appellant-Union of India filed its response to the claim petitions,
asserting that the accident was not caused by the rash or negligent
driving of the driver of the military vehicle. It was further submitted that
the Court of Inquiry revealed that the accident occurred due to the weak
berm of NH-1A, as a result of which the vehicle rolled down into a deep
gorge.
17. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal had framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether an accident occurred on 29.08.2007 by rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle 99R0063333343D (Army
Vehicle) at the hands of erring driver in which, deceased
sustained fatal injuries? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is
entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was
not holding a valid and effective DL ? OPR
4. Relief ? O.P.Parties.
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
18. The claimants in respect of issue No. 1examined PW Harban Lal, who
deposed that the army vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner at a high speed by Sepoy Brijesh Kumar, as a result of which the
driver lost control and the vehicle fell into a deep gorge. Consequently,
Arvind Singh, Rishi Dev, and Raju Singh Tomar died on the spot.
19. On the other hand, the Union of India examined RW Narinder Singh,
who deposed that he was travelling from Ramban towards Srinagar on
official duty. When the vehicle reached Khooni Nallah, Digdol, a tourist
bus coming from the opposite direction overtook another vehicle and
suddenly came in front of the army vehicle. The driver of the army
vehicle applied brakes abruptly, at that time the road caved in, causing
the army vehicle to plunge into the nallah. Five army personnel
accompanying him died on the spot, but he survived.
20. After examining the ocular and documentary evidence brought on record,
the learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased, Arvind Singh, Rishi
Dev, and Raju Singh Tomar, died as a result of a motor vehicular
accident involving the army vehicle bearing No. 99R006343D, which
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, Sepoy
Brijesh Kumar. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has decided Issue No. 1in
favour of the claimants and against the appellants.
21. Upon examining the record, this Court also does not find any perversity
in the findings of the learned Tribunal, as the witness Narinder Singh, an
independent witness, has categorically deposed as to how the accident
took place. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants that the
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of Sepoy
Brijesh Kumar is rejected.
22. The next issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the learned
Tribunal has granted just and adequate compensation to the claimants or
not.
23. In File No. 127/Claim - Urmila Devi and others, the learned Tribunal
has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 20,83,000.00 under the
following heads:-
1. For loss of dependency : Rs. 20,58,000.00
2. Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00
3. For loss of estate : Rs.10,000.00
4. For loss of consortium to
petitioner No.1 : Rs. 10,000.00
Total : Rs. 20,83,000.00
24. In this case, the claimant No.1 is the widow of deceased, claimants 2 to 4
are the children of the deceased and claimant No.5 is the mother of the
deceased. As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was serving as a
Havaldar in Indian Army, and his monthly salary was Rs.16,000/-. In
order to prove the salary of the deceased, PW Hav. Venugopal was
examined as witness, who deposed that deceased Arvind Singh was
serving as a Havaldar in 40/Lt. AD Regiment of Indian Army and his
monthly salary was Rs.14,652/- as such, the monthly income of the
deceased has been proved to be Rs. 14,652/-, and his age was 42 years at
the time of death. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 12, whereas
in terms of Sarla Verma's judgment (AIR 2009 SC 3104), the
appropriate multiplier would be 14.The Tribunal deducted one-fourth of
the income on account of personal expenses, which is in consonance with
law. However, future prospects were not taken into consideration. The
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
deceased being 42 years of age, his income is required to be enhanced2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
by
30% as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, so it brings
the monthly income to approximately Rs. 19,048/-. After deducting one-
fourth towards personal expenses and living expenses, and applying the
multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency would come to around Rs.
24,00,024/- rounded off to Rs. 24,00,000/-.The learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- under the heads of funeral
expenses and loss of estate respectively, which are required to be
enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- each. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.
10,000/- to claimant No.1 only as compensation on account of loss of
consortium which is required to be enhanced to Rs. 40,000/-each to all
the claimants viz. wife, three children and mother, total under this head
would come to Rs.2,00,000/-.(See Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit
Sahoo & Ors., 2024 INSC 584 and Smt. Manjula vs. The Branch
manager & Anr., 2025 INSC 1093)
25. Accordingly, the award is modified as under:
1. Loss of dependency : 24,00,000.00
2. Funeral expenses : 15,000.00
3. Loss of estate : 15,000.00
4. Loss of consortium to claimants: 2,00,000.00
Total : 26, 30,000.00
26. In File No. 128/Claim - Manoj Devi and others, the learned Tribunal
has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 24,75,000.00 under the
following heads::-
1. For loss of dependency : Rs. 24,50,000.00
2. Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00
3. For loss of estate : Rs. 10,000.00
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
4. For loss of consortium to
claimants : Rs. 10,000.00
Total : Rs. 24,75,000.00
27. In this case, the claimant No.1 is the widow of the deceased, claimant
Nos. 2 and 3 are minor children of deceased and claimants No.4 and 5
are parents of the deceased. The monthly salary has been proved to be
Rs. 12,095. Learned Tribunal has deducted one-fourth of the deceased's
income on account of personal and living expenses, which is in
consonance with law. However, the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of
15, whereas the appropriate multiplier in this case would be 17, as the
deceased was 27 years of age. Moreover, future prospects for
enhancement of income were not taken into consideration. The deceased
was a permanent employee of the Indian Army, and taking into account
future prospects, his income is required to be enhanced by 50% as per the
mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which brings the monthly income to
approximately Rs. 18,142/-. After deducting one-fourth towards personal
expenses, the adjusted monthly income comes to Rs. 13,606/-. Applying
the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency would come to around Rs.
27,75,624/-.The learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.
10,000/- under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate
respectively which are required to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- each. The
Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 10,000/- to claimant No.1 only as
compensation on account of loss of consortium which in the opinion of
this Court is required to be enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- each for all the
claimants viz. wife, two minor children and mother as the father of
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
deceased has already died, total under this head would come 2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
to
Rs.1,60,000/-.
28. Accordingly, the award is modified under the following heads:
Heads of Compensation Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 27,75,624.00
Funeral expenses 15,000.00
Loss of estate 15,000.00
Loss of consortium to claimants 1,60,000.00
Total 29,65,624.00
29. InFile No.129/claim-Surendra Singh and others, the learned Tribunal
has awarded the total compensation of Rs.11,59,000.00 under following
heads: -
1. For loss of dependency : Rs. 11,44,000.00
2. Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00
3. For loss of estate : Rs. 10,000.00
Total : Rs. 11,59,000.00
30. In this appeal, the claimants are the parents of the deceased, whose
monthly salary has been proved to be Rs. 11,548. The deceased, a
permanent employee of the Indian Army, was born on 20.06.1984 and
was 23 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal applied
a multiplier of 13, whereas, in the facts of the case, the appropriate
multiplier would be 18. Further, the Tribunal did not award any
compensation on account of future prospects. As per the mandate of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the future income of the deceased requires
enhancement by 50%. Being a bachelor, 50% of the deceased's earnings
are to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. On this basis,
the loss of dependency comes to approximately
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
Rs. 18,70,776. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- and 2026:JKLHC-JMU:183
Rs.
10,000/- under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate,
respectively, which in the opinion of this Court is required to be
enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- each. The claimants are also entitled to
compensation under the head of loss of consortium, assessed at Rs.
40,000/- each. Total would come to Rs.80,000/- under this head.
31. Accordingly, the award is modified as under:
Heads of Compensation Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 18,70,776.00
Funeral expenses 15,000.00
Loss of estate 15,000.00
Loss of consortium to the claimants 80,000.00
Total 19,80,776.00
32. The appellants-UOI are directed to satisfy the awarded amount
accordingly. The modified award shall carry interest @6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. The
enhanced amount be deposited within a period of thirty days and on
deposit the same shall be released in favour of the claimants after their
proper identification.
33. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the appellants against the
award dated 21.04.2012 are dismissed, and the cross-appeals filed by the
claimants are allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge
Jammu
06.02.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is reportable? No.
MA No.517/2012 a/w connected appeals,
