[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Bhupinder Kaur And Ors on 18 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
Reserved on:- 12.12.2025
Pronounced on:-18.12.2025
Uploaded on:- 19.12.2025
New India Assurance Company Limited ......Appellant
vs.
Bhupinder Kaur and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for cross-objector/respondent No.1.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. Vide this common judgment, this Court, shall dispose of the appeal
filed by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as cross-objections filed by the
cross-objector/claimant (mother of the deceased)
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the Award dated
01.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar
Mohali (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant-Insurance company was held
liable with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant/Respondent to the
tune of Rs.19,65,360/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.on the ground of
quantum of compensation to be on higher side.
3. The present cross-objection has been preferred by respondent
No.1/cross-objector/claimant against the award dated 01.12.2018 passed in the
claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali for enhancement of
1 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
compensation, granted to respondent No.1 (mother of the deceased) to the tune of
Rs.19,65,360/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of
deceased-Baljit Kaur in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 09.12.2017.
4. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal and cross-
objection 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
5. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends
that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and deserves
to be reduced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount
of compensation be reduced as per latest law.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant/cross objector
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 dismissed
and the present cross-objection be allowed and amount of compensation be
enhanced as per latest law.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
8. 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
2 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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
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
3 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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.
9. 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.
4 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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 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
5 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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 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
6 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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."
10. 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.
7 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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
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
8 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
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.
11. This Court deems it appropriate to first deal with the cross-objections
(XOBJC-126-CII-2019) filed in the present appeal.
12. A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased-Baljit Kaur was
stated to be 31 years old at the time of accident since the same was not disputed by
the Insurance Company therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age
of the deceased-Baljit Kaur as 32 years by relying in the matriculation
examination certificate (PW-1/E).
13. Further it has been stated that the deceased was a M.Sc.(IT),
MCA(IT) and has also done Masters in Library and Information Sciences and was
stated to be running a coaching centre and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. To
substantiate the same, the claimant (mother of the deceased) produced attested
copy of B.Com degree (Ex.PW-1/F), certificate of Master of Science (PW-1/G),
certificate of Diploma done by deceased in Information Technology (Ex.PW-1/H),
attested copy of post graduate diploma in computer applications (Ex.PW-1/I),
9 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
degree of Bachelor of Library and Information Sciences (Ex.PW-1/J), detail mark
certificate of Nursery Teacher's Training Course (Ex.PW-1/K), certificate of
diploma in Nursery Teacher Training (Ex.PW-1/L), certificate of Master of
Computer Applications (Ex.PW-1/M), detail of English Language Testing
Programme (Ex.PW-1/N), degree of Master of Library and Information Sciences
(Ex.PW-1/O).
14. A perusal of the award further reveals that learned Tribunal has erred
in assessing notional income of deceased-Baljit Kaur as Rs.12,000/- per month. It
is settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad
Singh (Dead) Through LR Vs. H.D. Narang and another; 2025 INSC 1164 that
simply taking minimum wages would not be suffice for justice and Court needs to
take into account the Educational Qualification of the deceased for calculation of
income. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
"4. The next contention is regarding the loss of income
computed. The appellant was a final year B.Com student who
had also enrolled with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India. The Tribunal adopted an income of Rs.3,339/- per month
being the minimum wages applicable to a workman. The High
Court found that though he had academic prospects, the victim
was yet to attain the qualification, which places the Court at a
disadvantage in adopting the income of a Chartered
Accountant. The High Court adopted an income of Rs.3,352/
While the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17, the High Court
correctly increased it to 18 as is laid down by a Constitution
Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of
Rs.18,03,512/- which was the total of the medical bills and the
loss of income computed as hereinabove mentioned as also
Rs.1 lakh for pain and suffering. The High Court increased the
10 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
quantum of income and awarded a total amount of
Rs.7,24,032/- as loss of income with 100% disability. The High
Court further awarded an amount of Rs.14 lakhs which
included attendant charges, loss of amenities, compensation for
pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects and
disfigurement occurred, in addition to the total medical
expenses of Rs.11,22,356/-. The total compensation awarded by
the High Court came to Rs.32,46,388/-.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued
that there was no rationale in adopting the minimum wages for
determining the income of a bright student who was in the
process of completing his graduation and proceeding to sit for
the Chartered Accountants examinations. The learned Counsel
for the Insurance Company first argued that the amounts
determined as minimum wages, is as per the schedule in Delhi
relatable to a graduate. We were not convinced that the
minimum wages would be determined on the basis of the
educational qualification alone without reference to the nature
of work carried on. The learned Counsel after further
verification submitted that minimum wages adopted is of the
year 2001 applicable to a skilled worker. We are not convinced
that even that can be adopted for a graduate who was in the
process of sitting for the Chartered Accountant examination
which would have placed him in a good employment with
immense prospects. The aspirations of the young man were
shattered by the accident which left him paraplegic and fighting
for breath, which also prompted the parents to relocate to
another part of the country. We are of the opinion that even if
he had not obtained the certificate as a Chartered Accountant,
upon graduation, he could have been employed as an
Accountant, who would have, on any reasonable estimate,
received an amount of Rs.5,000/- as monthly income in the year
2001, if the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker
was Rs.3,352/- Adopting Rs.5,000/- as monthly income, we are
11 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
of the opinion that, as has been held in Pranay Sethi, 40% has
to be computed as future prospects. The loss of income for the
100% disabled paraplegic would be Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.5,000/-
x 140% x 12 x 18). To this is to be added an amount of Rs.14
lakhs granted by the High Court under conventional heads and
the medical expenses of Rs.11,22,356/- totalling to
Rs.40,34,356/-. The total award carrying interest @ 9% per
annum from the filing of the petition till realisation, as awarded
by the Tribunal & the High Court and enhanced by us will be
paid to the substituted appellant within a period of four months
from today."
15. Having regard to the material on record establishing that the deceased
possessed high academic qualifications, including a Master's degree in M.Sc. (IT),
Master of Computer Applications (MCA) in Information Technology, and Master
of Library and Information Sciences, besides a diploma in Nursery Teacher
Training course, it is evident that she was endowed with substantial professional
competence and multifaceted skills, holding immense potential for a promising
career in diverse fields such as information technology, education, or library
sciences.
16. In circumstances where the deceased, despite her advanced
qualifications, was not gainfully employed at the time of the fatal accident, this
Court, guided by the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
fixation of notional income in respect of young persons with bright future
prospects and in the interest of rendering substantial justice, deems it just and
appropriate to assess the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-.
17. A perusal of the award further reveals that learned Tribunal has erred
in deducting 2/5 instead of 1/2 of amount towards personal expenses as per the
settled law.
12 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
18. A further perusal of the award further reveals that the amount
awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses is on lower side
and no amount has been awarded for loss of consortium, therefore, the award
requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
19. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above referred to judgments, the present cross-objections are allowed. Since cross-
objections are allowed, therefore the present appeal no longer survives and
accordingly dismissed. The award dated 01.12.2018 is modified accordingly. The
cross-objector/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation as per the
calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.20,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.8,000/- (40% of 20,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.14,000/- (28,000X 1/2)
4 Total Income Rs.14,000/- (28,000-14,000)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.26,88,000/- (14,000X12X16)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,400/-
Filial: 48,400 x 1
10 Total Compensation Rs.27,72,700/-
11 Deduction Rs.19,65,360/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.8,07,340/-(27,72,700-19,65,360)
13 of 14
FAO-2310-2019(O&M)
XOBJC-126-CII-2019
20. 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
Supreme Court Cases 107, the cross-objector/claimant is granted the interest
@ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition
till the date of its realization.
21. The Insurance Company-appellant 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 claimant/cross-objector, as per ratio settled by the learned Tribunal, vide its
award dated 01.12.2018. The claimant/cross-objector is directed to furnish their
bank account details to the Tribunal.
22. 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.
23. 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
14 of 14
