[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanta Rani And Others vs Surjit Singh And Others on 11 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5807-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5807-2019
Reserved on:- 05.12.2025
Pronounced on:- 11.12.2025
Uploaded On: 12.12.2025
Kanta Rani and Others ......Appellants
vs.
Surjit Singh and Others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Shrey Vasudev, Advocate (through VC)
for the appellants.
Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
20.04.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala in the
claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,
'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the
tune of Rs.4,06,000/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum on account of death of
Dharampal Gupta @ Dharam Pal Singla in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred
on 02.11.2016.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to
quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of
the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the
amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be
1 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of
compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company,
however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded is on higher side.
Therefore, he prays 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 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
2 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
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
3 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
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 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
4 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
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 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
5 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
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."
6 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
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
7 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
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 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
8 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.
9. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased Dharampal Gupta @
Dharam Pal Singla was stated to be 64 years of age. Since this fact was not
disputed by the insurance company, therefore the tribunal has rightly assessed the
age of the deceased Dharampal Gupta @ Dharam Pal Singla as 64 years by
placing reliance on post-mortem report Ex.C3.
10. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was stated to earning
Rs.35,000/- per month from the business of Singla Cement Store. However, the
learned tribunal has overlooked the income tax return and has not considered the
same for assessment of loss of income of the deceased by holding that the
appellants have suffered no actual loss because the cement store business of the
deceased is stated to be continuing after his death and consequently assessed the
nominal income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month for loss towards
supervisory skills.
11. However, this approach of learned Tribunal is not tenable in the eyes
of law on many counts. Firstly, no cogent evidence has been adduced before the
Tribunal to establish that the said business is, in fact, still being carried on by the
appellants or any other person. Even assuming, without admitting, that the
business is being continued by the appellants after stepping into the shoes of the
deceased, it cannot be presumed as a matter of law that the appellants possess the
same acumen, experience, contacts, goodwill, and entrepreneurial ability as the
deceased. In the absence of such parity, a decline in the turnover and profitability
of the business is not only probable but expected, particularly when the successors
are likely to lack the maturity, expertise, and standing in the trade that the
9 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
deceased enjoyed. This vital aspect, which directly impacts the assessment of loss
of dependency has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal.
12. The same view has been fortified by the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vishnu Ganga and others Vs. M/s Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 INSC 123. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced as under:-
"11. Having examined the matter, the Court finds that the
Award rendered by the Tribunal is well-considered. Though the
claimed compensation was Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore) each with regard to the father and the mother, the
Tribunal granted Rs.58,24,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Eight Lakhs
Twenty-Four Thousand) re the father and Rs.93,61,000/-
(Rupees Ninety-Three Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand) re the
mother. The documents produced by the appellants and the
reasoning given by the Tribunal as well as the Karnataka High
Court's Division Bench judgment in B Parimala (supra)
indicate, and in our opinion, rightly so, that merely because the
appellants stepped into the shoes of the deceased, by such
factum itself, the appellants would not be capable of running
the Mill. It would be of relevance as to whether due to their
lack of experience and maturity, real/expected downfall in the
profitability of the firm or the business would ensue. Such
factor, while considering a claim pertaining to loss of future
income/earnings, would have to be dealt with. In the present
cases, even the monthly incomes of the parents as claimed by
the appellants i.e.. income of the father being Rs.25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs) per year and the mother's being
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per year, the notional
income fixed by the Tribunal of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
Thousand) each per month, is much more reasonable. It is no
longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable
evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof
10 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738, Para 17; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 Para 7, and K
Ramya (supra) Para 14"
13. Furthermore, the decision of learned Tribunal to notionally assess the
monthly income of the deceased at a grossly inadequate sum of Rs.8,000/- merely
on account of "supervisory skills" is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. The
claimants/appellants had asserted a monthly income of Rs.35,000/-, which stands
corroborated by the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the Assessment Year
2015-16 (Ex.C-7), wherein the gross total income is reflected as Rs.3,92,332/-.
14. It is a settled proposition of law, repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, that Income Tax Returns constitute the most reliable and authentic
evidence for determining the income of a deceased in motor accident
compensation cases. By discarding this unimpeachable documentary evidence and
substituting it with a conjectural figure, the Tribunal has fallen into grave error.
Reference at this stage can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC
1338.
15. The relevant portion of the same is produced as under:-
"13. The Deceased in the present case was a
businessman and during the proceedings before the Tribunal,
the Appellants produced the relevant income tax returns, audit
reports and other relevant documents pertaining to the
commercial ventures of the Deceased to prove the loss of
income attributable on account of his sudden demise. The
Tribunal relied on the same and computed the income by taking
an average of the income recorded in three prior financial
11 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
years (FY 2000-2001, FY 2001-2002 and FY 2002-2003) to
determine the compensation under the head of `loss of income'.
14. In contrast, the High Court set aside the same on the
ground that the income earned was out of capital assets and
cannot be said to have been earned out of personal skills of the
deceased. It consequently went on to determine the income of
the Deceased on a notional basis as per his educational
qualification. Unfortunately, such an approach, in our opinion,
is erroneous in view of the decisions of this court in Amrit
Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 11 SCC 738,
para 17. and Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.
(2015) 2 SCC 764, para 8. wherein this court has held that
documents such as income tax returns and audit reports are
reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased.
Hence, we are obliged to modify the compensation, especially
when neither any additional evidence has been produced to
showcase that the income of the Deceased was contrary to the
amount mentioned in the audit reports nor it is the stand taken
by the Insurance Company that the said reports inflated the
income.
15. At this stage, to facilitate our analysis, it would be
pertinent to divide the income as mentioned in the audit reports
into two parts -(a) Income from Business Ventures and other
Investments and (b) Income from House Property and
Agricultural Land. It should be emphasized that these audit
reports only showcase amounts which specifically stem from
the shares and interest held by the Deceased in the businesses
and it is not a case wherein the entire turnover of businesses
are depicted as Deceased's income. Moreover, it deserves to be
clarified that the income under the abovementioned two parts
have been computed at gross value as per the audit reports and
includes the deductions such as interest paid on loans and
expenses incurred by the deceased.
12 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
C.2.1 - Treatment of Income from Business Ventures and other
Investments
16. As per the audit report and other documents, the
income under this part was attributable to the amounts earned
from the deceased's multiple business ventures, which included
the partnership firms and other investments such as shares and
bank interests. On perusal of the documents on record, it is to
be noticed that almost all business ventures were the result of
the initiatives taken by the Deceased, and he was actively
involved in the day-to-day management of these entities. In
fact, the testimony of the Deceased's wife points out that the
Appellants had to sell the buses which were utilized in the
transport business because they were not able to take care of
the vehicles on account of the demise of the Deceased and even
the export business was shut down due to the same reason.
17. The mere fact that the Deceased's share of ownership
in these businesses ventures was transferred to the Deceased's
minor children just before his death or to the dependents after
his death is not a sufficient justification to conclude that the
benefits of these businesses continue to accrue to his
dependents. On the contrary, it has come on record that the
Deceased was actively involved in the day-to-day
administration of these businesses from their stage of infancy,
had undergone specialized training to administer his business
and that the audit reports neatly delineate Deceased's share of
income from the businesses. These facts necessitate that the
entire amount from the business ventures is treated as income.
Similarly, the amount earned from the bank interests and
remaining investments must also be included as income.
18. The Appellants have produced audit reports for the last four
financial years which highlight the amounts under `Income
from Business Ventures and other Investments' which is as per
follows - (i) for FY 2000-2001 is Rs. 8,95,812/- (ii) for FY
2001-2002 is Rs. 10,31,091/- (iii) for FY 2002- 2003 is Rs.
13 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
14,65,060/- and (iv) for FY 2003-2004 is Rs. 9,79,099/-. The
average of these amounts comes up to Rs. 10,92,765.50/-,
which is rounded off to Rs 10,93,000/- and the same is awarded
to the Appellants as loss of income derived under `Income from
Business Ventures and other Investments'.
16. In view of the above discussion and settled legal position, this Court
places reliance on Ex. C-7 (ITR for A.Y. 2015-16) showing the deceased's gross
total income as Rs. 3,92,332/- to assess the annual income (as depicted from ITR).
17. The annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 3,92,332/- and the
monthly income as Rs. 32,694.33 (Rs. 3,92,332 ÷ 12), rounded off to Rs. 32,700/-
per month.
18. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased for computation of
loss of dependency is accordingly fixed at Rs. 32,700/-.
19. Thus, the impugned award suffers from infirmities both on facts and
in law and deserves to be set aside to the extent it restricts the income of the
deceased.
20. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal erred
in deducting 1/2 towards personal expenditure of the deceased. Considering the
fact that the deceased has four dependants and keeping in view the settled law on
compensation, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the
deceased.
21. Furthermore, the amount granted under the head of loss of estate,
funeral expense and loss of consortium is on lower side. Therefore, the award
requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
22. 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
14 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
20.04.2019 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.32,700/-
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.8,175/- (32,700 X 1/4)
4 Total Income Rs.24,525/- (32,700-8,175)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.20,60,100/- (24,525 X 12 X 7)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
Parental: 48,400 x 3
Spousal: 48,400 x 1
Total Compensation Rs.22,90,000/-
Deduction Rs.4,06,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.18,84,000/-(22,90,000-4,06,000)
23. 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 Nandu 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.
24. The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a
period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in
15 of 16
FAO-5807-2019
the accounts of the claimants/appellants and as per ration settled by the learned
Tribunal, vide its award dated 20. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish
their bank account details to the Tribunal.
25. However, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is granted liberty to
recover the said amount of compensation from the insured i.e. owner of the
offending vehicle as per the award dated 20.04.2019.
26. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
11.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
