[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramji Dass And Anr vs Gurjit Singh And Anr on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on:- 11.12.2025
Pronounced on:-15.12.2025
Uploaded On:- 16.12.2025
Ramji Dass & another ......Appellants
vs.
Gurjit Singh and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present:- Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Aman Sharma, Advocate for respondent-PRTC.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
24.01.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana 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.6,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of
death of Lovepreet Kaur (minor) in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on
21.10.2017.
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.
1 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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
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.2, however,
vehemently argues that the compensation awarded is on higher side. He points out
that the respondents have already filed a separate appeal being FAO-795-2021
titled as PEPSU Road Transportation Corporation Vs. Ramji Dass & others,
challenging the quantum of compensation and seeking its reduction. 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
2 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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
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.
* * * * * *
3 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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 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
4 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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 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%
5 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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.
6 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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."
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".
7 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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 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
8 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
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 award reveals that the deceased, Lovepreet Kaur
(minor), was a minor child aged merely 17 years at the time of the accident. The
Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 16 years, based
on the post-mortem report (Ex.P8). Therefore, no interference is warranted in this
regard.
10. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has
erred in awarding lump sum amount for the death of Lovepreet Kaur (minor) to
the claimants. However, the Learned ought to have calculated loss of dependency
by calculating the multiplicand. Therefore, determining the income of the
deceased, the income of skilled labour is to be taken into consideration.
11. It is by now a well-settled and consistently reiterated principle of law
that the death or permanent disability of a minor child in a motor vehicle accident
cannot be equated with that of a non-earning individual for the purposes of
computing compensation. The reason is obvious: a child, by virtue of tender age,
is not engaged in gainful employment and, therefore, any rigid categorisation as a
"non-earner" would not only be artificial but would also defeat the very object of
just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
12. In such cases, the proper course for determination of compensation
under the head of "loss of income" is to adopt, at the very least, the minimum
wages notified for a skilled worker in the State concerned at the relevant time. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in categorical terms, laid down this principle in
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 413] and Baby Sakshi Greola v.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692], wherein it was
held that a potential of a minor and future prospects cannot be curtailed by
treating him/her as a non-earner, and the yardstick of minimum wages of a skilled
worker is the just and reasonable benchmark.
13. Therefore, the monthly notional income of the deceased minor,
Lovepreet Kaur (minor) is accordingly assessed at Rs. 9,500/- per month being
the minimum wages of a skilled worker as notified for the relevant period in the
State of Punjab.
14. A perusal of the award further reveals that the learned Tribunal has
erred in not adding any amount towards future prospects. Therefore, in view of the
settled law on compensation and considering the age of the deceased, 40% is to be
added towards future prospects. Furthermore, 1/2 is to be deduced towards
personal expenditure of the deceased out of his monthly income as per settled law
for the calculation of multipicand.
15. A further perusal of the award reveals that learned Tribunal has not
applied the multiplier in assessing the loss of dependency. On the correct legal
matrix, in light of the age of the deceased being 17 years of age the proper
multiplier should be 18.
16. A further perusal of the award reveals that the grandfather of the
deceased is not granted any amount for loss of consortium. Therefore, as per the
settled law and in the interest of justice, he is also entitled for loss of consortium
10 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
as death of a family member is an unfathomable tragedy for the family and any
amount of compensation will not be suffice for such loss. Furthermore, brother of
the deceased has been granted correct amount for the loss of consortium,
therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard.
17. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has
erred in granting meager amount for funeral expenses and loss of estate.
Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
18. 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
24.01.2020 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.9500/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.3800/- (9500x40%)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.6650/- (13300x1/2)
4 Total Income Rs.6650 (13300-6650)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.14,36,400/- (6650X12X18)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800/-
Filial : 48400X2
Total Compensation Rs.15,69,500/-
11 of 12
FAO-1930-2021 (O&M)
19. 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.
20. The respondent-PRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to
disburse the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest in the account
of the claimants/appellants. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish her
bank account details to the Tribunal.
21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
15.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
