[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mina Devi Alias Meena Devi And Anr vs Jaswant Singh And Others on 2 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2360-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.12.2025
Mina Devi alias Meena Devi and another ....Appellants
V/s
Jaswant Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
Claimants have preferred the instant appeal seeking
enhancement in compensation granted to them vide Award dated 30.07.2022
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (for short 'the
MACT').
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that
appellants/claimants, who are the parents of the deceased-Sonu Kumar
Singh, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short 'the MV Act') claiming compensation on account of the
death of Sonu Kumar Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place
on 13.11.2020.
3. It was averred that on 13.11.2020, Sonu Kumar Singh along
with his friend Rahul Kumar was going to the home of the paternal aunt of
aforesaid Rahul Kumar at Bassi Pathana on their motorcycle bearing Regn
No.PB65-AR-9121 for giving Diwali Gift. The motocycle was being driven
by Sonu Kumar Singh at a slow speed on the correct side of the road and
Rahul Kumar was the pillion rider. They were also followed by one Sanjay
1 of 6
FAO-2360-2023 (O&M) -2-
Kumar, who was the brother of the aforesaid Rahul Kumar. It has been
averred that at about 8.00 p.m. when they reached near the bend of Village
Tibba Keh, a truck bearing Regn. No.PB03-AJ-2825 (hereinafter referred to
as the "offending vehicle") was wrongly parked on the road without any
parking lights and indicator. The front side of the truck was stated to be
towards Bassi Pathana. As a result, the motorcycle of Sonu Kumar Singh
struck on the back side of the offending vehicle. Both, Sonu Kumar Singh
and Rahul Kumar fell down on the road. The driver of the offending vehicle
disclosed his name as Jaswant Singh. Both injured were taken to Civil
Hospital, Bassi Pathana, where both were declared to be brought dead. It
was averred that that the accident had taken place on account of the
negligence of the driver (respondent No.1 ) of the offending vehicle. The
matter was reported to the police by Sanjay Kumar, the brother of the
aforesaid Rahul Kumar and FIR No.166, dated 14.11.2020 was registered at
Police Station Bassi Pathana, under Sections 279, 283, 304A and 427 IPC.
As such, compensation of Rs.50 lakhs was claimed by the claimants.
4. On notice, respondents No.1 to 2 appeared and filed their joint
written statement. They denied all the averments made in the petition
including the factum of the accident.
5. The claim petition was opposed by respondent No.3-insurance
company. In the written statement, it took its usual defences and denied the
factum of the accident.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether Sonu Kumar Singh died in a road side accident caused
by the respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing No.PB03-AJ-2825 in
a rash and negligent manner?OPP
2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR3
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation as
prayed for? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
2 of 6
FAO-2360-2023 (O&M) -3-
4. Whether the respondent No.1 being driven of the above said
vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of
accident?OPR3
5. Whether the respondent No.1 had committed breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect?OPR3
6. Relief."
7. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. The MACT held that the accident had taken place on account of
the rash and negligence of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. As
regards the quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was assessed
as 28 years and his monthly income was assessed as Rs.22763/- per month.
All the claimants were held to be dependent on the income of the deceased.
In terms of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company
vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Sarla Verma
vs. DTC, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and keeping in view the age of the deceased, a
multiplier of '17 was applied by the MACT. The MACT assessed and
granted the following compensation:-
Sr. No. Heads of Claim
1 Age of the deceased 28 years
2 Income of the deceased Rs.22763/-
3 After deducting 1/3th of Rs.15175.34/-
the income as personal Rs.1,82,104.08/-
expenses of the deceased
(Rs.7587.66)
4 After applying Multiplier Rs.1,82,104.08/- x 17
of '17'
=Rs.3095769.36/-
5 Loss of Estate Rs.15000/-
6 Loss of consortium Rs.40000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.15000/-
8 Total Compensation Rs.31,65,767.36/-
As such, compensation of Rs.31,65,767.36/- was granted along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
till its actual realization. As it was not proved by the respondent-insurance
company that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving license, it
3 of 6
FAO-2360-2023 (O&M) -4-
was held by the MACT that respondent No.3 would pay the compensation to
all the claimants in equal shares on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 as
indemnifier.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the MACT
erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side. Learned
counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation deserves to be
enhanced in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, (2017)16 SCC 680, Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram,
(2018) 18 SCC 130. Learned counsel submits that future prospects was not
granted in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR
(Civil) 1009 and the same needs to be added to the income of the deceased
@ 50%, he being a salaried employee. Still further, learned counsel submits
that compensation on account of loss of estate and filial consortium also
deserves to be granted in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. It has been submitted that the same would be @ Rs.48,400/- for each
dependant (for the father and the mother).
11. On the contrary, learned counsel representing respondent No.3-
insurance company submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, the
MACT while computing loss of dependency erroneously deducted personal
expenses as 1/3rd of the assessed income of the deceased, whereas it should
have been 1/2 of the assessed income of the deceased.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
4 of 6
FAO-2360-2023 (O&M) -5-
the parties.
13. There is no challenge to the Award by either side on the issue of
negligence and only enhancement in compensation is claimed. The monthly
income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.22,763/- per month. However,
while assessing the income of the deceased, the MACT did not add future
prospects to the assessed income of the deceased in terms of the law laid
down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Under the circumstances, future
prospects @ 50% also deserve to be added to the assessed income of the
deceased. Further, a sum of `48,400/- to each of the claimants is required to
be awarded on account of filial consortium. It is an admitted fact that the
deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and as such, deduction of 1/2
of the assessed income would have to be made on account of personal
expenses instead of 1/3rd as assessed by the MACT.
14. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, the compensation is assessed as under, keeping in mind the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-
Sr. Heads of Claim Awarded by the Enhanced
No. MACT Compensation
1. Age of the deceased 28 years 28 years
(No change)
2. Income of the deceased Rs.22763/- Rs.22763/-
(No change)
3. Future Prospects @ Not granted Rs.11381.5
50% Rs.22763+11381.5
=Rs.34,144.5
4. After deducting 1/2 of Rs.15175.34 p.m. Rs.17,072.25/-
the income as personal (after deduction p.m. X 12
expenses of the of 1/3rd of =
deceased Rs.22763/-) Rs.2,04,867 per
Rs.1,82,104.08 annum
per annum
5. After applying Rs.1,82,104.08/- Rs.2,04,867 X 17
Multiplier of '17' x 17 Rs.34,82,739/-
Rs.30,95,769.36/-
6. Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Rs.18150/-
7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15000/- Rs.18150/-
5 of 6
FAO-2360-2023 (O&M) -6-
8. Loss of consortium Rs.40000/- Rs.96800/-
(Rs.48400/- each)
Total Compensation Rs.31,65,767.36/- Rs.36,15,839/-
The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.36,15,839/-.
After deducting a sum of Rs.31,65,767.36 as assessed by the MACT, the
balance compensation comes to Rs.4,50,071.64/- rounded off to
Rs.4,50,100/-. This amount would be payable in addition to the amount
assessed by the learned MACT along with interest @ 7.5% annually. The
disbursal and liability to pay the same would be as per the award.
14. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
December 02, 2025
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
