[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anju Devi And Others vs Geeta Ram And Others on 18 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2776-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2776-2025
Reserved on:- 11.12.2025
Pronounced on:- 18.12.2025
Uploaded On: 19.12.2025
Anju Devi and others ......Appellants
vs.
Geeta Ram and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
04.02.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula 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.19,96,572/- alongwith interest @6% per annum on account of death
of Suresh Ram in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 20.03.2024.
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 12
FAO-2776-2025
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 12
FAO-2776-2025
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
3 of 12
FAO-2776-2025
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 12
FAO-2776-2025
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 12
FAO-2776-2025
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 12
FAO-2776-2025
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
7 of 12
FAO-2776-2025
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
the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.
9. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased Suresh Ram was
stated to be 40 years of age. Since this fact was not disputed by the insurance
company, therefore the tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased Suresh
Ram as 40 years by placing reliance on post-mortem report Ex.P3.
10. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was stated to be a
cook and was stated to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimant herself
stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that deceased was earning
around Rs.25,000/- per month by working as cook. She has also placed on filed
salary certificate (Mark P-1) issued by Mr. Gursahib Singh (Contractor), wherein
it is mentioned that Suresh Ram (since deceased) was working as a cook and
getting Rs.25,000/- as salary. The same has not be proved on file as the person
8 of 12
FAO-2776-2025
who issued this certificate has not been examined as a witness in this case. The
claimants have also examined PW-4 Venketesh, Manager of SBI, Sector-1,
Panchkula to prove bank account statement Ex.P-16 of deceased Suresh Ram.
However, the learned Tribunal has erringly ignored the bank statement of the
deceased which shows that the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been credited in the
account of the deceased in the month of October, 2020 to April, 2021, and from
August, 2021 to September, 2021 and consequently taken the income of the
deceased as per the minimum wages of unskilled labour prevailing at the time of
accident in the State of Haryana at Rs.10,924.24/- per month.
11. Merely because claimants were unable to produce any other
documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased, same does not justify
discarding the salary certificate (Mark P-1) and bank statement (Ex.P-16) which
clearly shows that the deceased had been working as a cook in the past and was
earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
12. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of
the deceased as per the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer i.e.
Rs.10,924.24/-per month. Even though no other documentary evidence except the
salary certificate (Mark P-1) and bank statement (Ex.P-16) of the deceased was
produced by the claimants, still it is pertinent to note that the deceased was stated
to be working in an unorganised sector, therefore, the formal documentation of
earning is not always maintained, in view of this, the Ld. Tribunal erred in
assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.10,924.24/- per month. Support for this
conclusion can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO-
2822-2006, titled as Tripta Rani and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another,
decided on 15.10.2024. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
9 of 12
FAO-2776-2025
10. Though no documentary evidence was submitted by the
claimants, still it is pertinent to note that the deceased was
working in an unorganised sector, therefore, the formal
documentation of earning is not always maintained, in view of
this, the Ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. Support for this conclusion
can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram
Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, 2021 ACJ 2554, wherein it has
been held as under:-
"Merely because claimants were unable to produce
documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased,
same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage
while computing income. No reason to discard oral evidence of
wife of deceased who deposed that deceased was earning
around Rs.15000/- per month Deceased aged about 32 years on
date of accident and..."
11. In view of the facts and legal principles outlined
hereinabove, the income of Rs.3000/- as determined by the Ld.
Tribunal appears to be understated. Consequently, upon due
consideration of the oral evidence on recod, it would be just
and proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.8000/-
per month. This assessment in my view, would better serve the
ends of justice."
13. Be that as it may, it is trite that cook falls under the category of skilled
labour. In view of the above referred to judgments and facts & circumstances of
the case, this court in the interest of justice is inclined to assess the notional
income of the deceased as of a skilled worker i.e. Rs.12,193/- (rounding of to
Rs.12,500) per month.
10 of 12
FAO-2776-2025
14. A further perusal of the award shows that the amount awarded under
the heads of Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium is on the
lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
15. 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
04.02.2025 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.12,500/-
2 Future Prospect Rs.3,125/- (12,500 X 25%)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.3,907/- (15,625 X 1/4)
4 Total Income Rs.11,718/- (15,625-3,907)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.21,09,240/- (11,718 X 12 X 15)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,42,000/-
Parental: 48,400 x 4
Spousal: 48,400 x 1
Total Compensation Rs.23,87,540/-
Deduction Rs.19,96,572/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.3,90,968/-(23,87,540-19,96,572)
16. 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
11 of 12
FAO-2776-2025
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.
17. 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
the accounts of the claimants/appellants and as per ration settled by the learned
Tribunal, vide its award dated 04.02.2025. The claimants/appellants are directed to
furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
18. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of
2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to
Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the
present case.
19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
18.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
