[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kamlesh And Others on 18 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M)
Reserved on:- 26.11.2025
Pronounced on:- 18.12.2025
Uploaded on:- 19.12.2025
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
......Appellant
vs.
KAMLESH AND OTHERS
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate
Ms. Namisha Kapoor, Advocate
Ms. Chahat, Advocate
Ms. Anmol Singh, Advocate
for respondents.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
10.02.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for
short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant insurance company was held
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of
Rs.48,28,692/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on the ground of
quantum of compensation to be on higher side.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
1 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -2-
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. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
higher side. He further submits that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the
deduction as to personal expenditure as 1/3rd instead of 1/2.
4. He further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in granting
the amount under the head of consortium to the elder brother of the deceased.
The same should not have been granted as he is earning his livelihood and
was not dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, he prays that the present
appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced as per latest law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that the
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal has rightly been assessed, therefore,
they pray for dismissal of the present appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
7. 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
2 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -3-
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 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
3 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -4-
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.
8. 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;
4 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -5-
(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
5 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -6-
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 should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
6 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -7-
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."
7 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -8-
9. 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".
8 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -9-
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
9 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -10-
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.
10. Adverting to the contention raised by the appellant regarding the
erroneous application of the deduction by the learned Tribunal, it is held that
the argument is misconceived and untenable in law. The appellant asserts that
the learned Tribunal ought to have applied a deduction of 1/2 instead of 1/3rd.
However, this contention is devoid of merit.
11. It is a settled legal principle that where the deceased is married
and has 2 to 3 dependants, the appropriate deduction towards personal and
living expenses is 1/3rd, not 1/2. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly
applied the deduction of 1/3rd, and the challenge raised by the appellant does
not sustain in the eyes of law. Therefore no interference is warranted in this
regard.
12. It is further contended by the appellant that the elder brother of
the deceased is not entitled to any compensation. This contention is contrary
to the settled position of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently
recognised that the loss of a family member in a motor accident is an
unfathomable tragedy not only for the parents but also for the siblings. The
10 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -11-
anguish, grief and emotional trauma suffered by siblings are profound and
enduring, often defying adequate articulation. No amount of compensation
can truly redress the emotional void caused by such a loss.
13. In Sadhana Tomar & Others v. Ashok Kushwaha & Others,
2025 SCC OnLine 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressly awarded
compensation under the head of consortium to the legal representatives of the
deceased, thereby affirming that legal representatives are entitled to such
compensation in appropriate cases.
14. The relevant paras of judgment passed in Sadhana Tomar's case
(supra) are reproduced as under:-
"13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v.
Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective
of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to
the aggrieved party. Another question which arose for our
consideration, as for the purpose of loss of dependency, the
deduction of annual income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as
there are five claimants. The Tribunal did not consider
appellant Nos.4 and 5, namely, the father and the younger
sister, respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating
therein that the father was not dependent on the income of
the deceased and since the father is alive, the younger
sister is also not dependent on the income of the deceased.
This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
[(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal representative is
one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a
motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife,
husband, parent or child.
14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712],
this Court observed that :
11 of 12
FAO-4344-2025 (O&M) -12-
"16. In our view, the term "legal representative"
should be given a wider interpretation for the
purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should
not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and
children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV
Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object
of providing monetary relief to the victims or their
families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal
and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose
underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative
intent. We are also of the view that in order to
maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the
claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section
166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal
representative who suffers on account of the death of
a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a
remedy for realisation of compensation."
15. In view of the above legal position, the learned Tribunal has
rightly granted consortium to the sibling of the deceased, and the objection
raised by the Appellant is without any merit. Therefore, no interference is also
warranted in this regard also.
16. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed.
17. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant-
Insurance Company at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be
refunded to them.
18. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
18.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
12 of 12
