[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janki Devi Etc vs Nirmal Singh Etc on 10 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on : 26.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025
Uploaded on : 11.12.2025
Janki Devi and another ......Appellants
Vs.
Nirmal Singh and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate,
for the appellants.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate,
for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
30.03.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation,
granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Shobha in a
Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 30.05.2016.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the detailed
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -2-
narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for
the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that
the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and
deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, she prays that the present appeal be
allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however,
vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed by the learned
Tribunal and the amount of compensation as assessed by it has rightly been
granted. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant
paras of the same are as under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having a considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that
where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-
third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is
2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -3-
members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependent family members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and
living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would
tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the
possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event
the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut
drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the
father is likely to have his own income and will not be
considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third.
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),
which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age
groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for
every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to
35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and
M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every
five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60
years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -4-
the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
on the following aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with
escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for
different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed
salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned,
we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in
Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral
expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor
children. The head relating to loss of care and minor
children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh
Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike
determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that
price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this
aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind
of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -5-
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that we
have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis
in every three years and the enhancement should be at
the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed
to hold so because that will bring in consistency in
respect of those heads.
* * * * *
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less
tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10%
where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the income
minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that
judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced
at the rate of 10% in every three years."
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -6-
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same are reproduced as under:-
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²
dealt with the various heads under which compensation
is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is
loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses "spousal
consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial
consortium". The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
"company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation".
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training".
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the
value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic
value of the compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -7-
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the
parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium
is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count. However, there was
no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as
laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem
it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.
9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was
15 years of age at the time of the accident and had successfully completed
her matriculation. The learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in
assessing the notional income of the deceased at only Rs.30,000/- per
annum.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent authoritative
pronouncement titled as Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari and another, 2025 INSC 1070, has categorically held that a minor
child who dies or suffers permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident
cannot be equated with a non-earning individual merely because the child
was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. The
Apex Court has further clarified that, in such cases, the computation of
compensation under the head "loss of income" must be undertaken by
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -8-
adopting at the very least the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled
workman as notified for the relevant period in the State where the cause of
action arises. The relevant extracts of the judgment passed in Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel's case (supra) is reproduced as under:-
"9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor
appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment
and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is
evident that the Courts below have failed to take into
account the monthly income of the appellant while
determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a
well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of
law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent
disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed
in the same category as a non-earning individual for the
purposes of assessing the amount of compensation
because the child was not engaged in gainful employment
at the time of the accident. In such a case, the
computation of compensation under the head of loss of
income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least,
the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as
notified for the relevant period in the respective State
where the cause of action arises. The said observation
was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad
Simon and Anr.
10. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an
8- year-old child at the time of the accident. In view of
the above exposition of law, we must advert to the
prevailing minimum wages, which for the skilled ones, as
in the year of accident, i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -9-
Rs.227.85p. per day, therefore, in the interest of justice,
we deem it appropriate to determine the income of the
appellant as Rs.6,835.5p. per month, rounding off to
Rs.6,836/- per month."
Therefore, resorting to minimum wages applicable at the time
of accident, the correct monthly income ought to have been assessed at
Rs.9,806/-. Thus, the income of the deceased may be reasonably rounded
off and re-assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month.
11. A further perusal of the award reveals that no amount is added
to the monthly income of the deceased as future prospects. Therefore, in
view of the settled law on compensation and considering the age of the
deceased (15 years), 40% is to be added as future prospects.
12. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal
has erred in not deducting any amount towards personal expenditure, which
is ought to be 1/2 as per the settled law.
13. Further perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal has
erred in applying multiplier of 15 instead of 18. Furthermore, no amount is
granted under the head of loss of estate and meager amount is granted under
the head of funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Therefore, the award
requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award
dated 30.03.2017 is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -10-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.10,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4,000/- (40% of 10,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.7,000/- {(10,000 + 4,000) X
expenditure 1/2 1/2}
4 Total Income Rs.7,000/- (14,000 - 7,000)
5 Annual Income Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7,000 X 12)
7 Annual Dependency Rs.15,12,000/- (84,000 X 18)
8 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
9 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
10 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800/-
Filial : Rs. 48,400/- x 2
Total Compensation Rs.16,45,100/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.5,00,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.11,45,100/-
15. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants
are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the
date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
16. The respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed
to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the
FAO-5975-2017 (O&M) -11-
accounts of the appellants/claimants, in the ratio settled by the learned
Tribunal in the award. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their
bank account details to the Tribunal.
17. Disposed of accordingly.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
10.12.2025
Virender
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
