[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Afsana & Ors on 23 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2216-2014 (O&M)
XOBJC-112-CII-2015
Reserved on: 28.11.2025
Date of Decision: 23.12.2025
Date of uploading: 24.12.2025
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD.
......Appellant
Vs.
AFSANA AND ORS.
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate appellant-Insurance
Company.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4.
----
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
CM-12808-CII-2015
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the cross
objections in the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the cross-objector contends that the
climants-cross-objectors would not ask interest for the delayed period.
3. Notice in the application.
1 of 13
4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra,
Advocate accepts notice on behalf of appellant-Insurance Company
and contends that he has no objection if the application is allowed.
5. For the reasons mention in the application for
condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit, the
application is allowed.
6. The delay of 6 days in filing the cross-objections in the
present appeal is condoned.
FAO-2216-2014 (O&M) XOBJC-112-CII-2015
1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of
the appeal filed by the insurance company as well as cross objections
filed by the respondents No.1 to 4-claimants.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
insurance company against the award dated 11.10.2013 passed by the
learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nuh (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), whereby the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 were awarded
compensation of Rs.29,76,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum
and Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation, on
the ground that compensation awarded is on higher side.
3. The present cross-objection has been preferred by
respondents No.1 to 4/cross-objector/claimant against the award dated
11.10.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Nuh for enhancement of compensation, granted to claimants
to the tune of Rs.29,76,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on
2 of 13
account of death of deceased-Maksood in a motor vehicular accident,
occurred on 07.03.2012.
4. 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 THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly took the income of the
deceased as Rs.18,000/- per month, as there was no income tax return
or documentary proof regarding the same. He further contends that
the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side.
Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of
compensation be modified as per latest law.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants/cross
objectors 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 cross-objections be allowed, present appeal be
dismissed 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.
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
3 of 13
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 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.
4 of 13
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 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;
5 of 13
(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.
10. 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
6 of 13
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 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
7 of 13
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."
11. 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",
8 of 13
"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 parents
to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount
9 of 13
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.
12. This Court deems it appropriate to first deal with the
cross-objections (XOBJC-112-CII-2015) filed in the present appeal.
13. A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased-
Maksood was stated to be 24 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-Maksood
as 24 years.
10 of 13
14. From the material available on record, it is revealed that
the deceased was stated to be working as a Contractor and was stated
to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To prove the income of the
deceased the claimants/cros-objectors have examined Mohd. Fahad
(PW-4) Management Trainee Shri Radhakrishna Educational Trust,
Gurgaon who has testified that as per the record of Shri Radhakrishna
Educational Trust, Gurgaon, the deceased used to provide one tata
magic to the Universal Academy, Nagina vide agreement Mark-A. He
has also produced the statement of account Ex.P-12 and Form 16 A as
Ex. P-4, which shows the income of the deceased @ Rs.18000/- per
month. Consequently the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income
of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month by placing reliance on Ex.P-
4 (Statement of account P-12 and Form 16-A).
15. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned
Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future
prospects and loss of Estate. Moreover, the compensation granted
under the head of loss of consortium is also on lower side. Therefore,
the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
16. 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 11.10.2013 is modified accordingly. The cross-
11 of 13
objectors/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the
calculations made here-under:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.18,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.7200/- (40% of 18000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.6300/- (1/4 of 25200)
4 Total Income Rs.18,900/-(25200-6300)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.40,82,400/-
(18900 X 12 X 18)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
Filial: 48,400 X 2
Spousal: 48,400 X 1
Parental: 48,400X1
10 Total Compensation Rs.43,12,300/-
11 Amount Awarded by the Rs.29,76,000/-
Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.13,36,300/- (43,12,300-
29,76,000)
17. 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 amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.
18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest (excluding the
period of delay of 06 days in filing the cross objections) with the
12 of 13
learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse
the same to the cross objectors/claimants in their bank account as per
ratio settled in the award dated 11.10.2013. The Cross
Objectors/claimants are directed to furnish their bank accounts detail
to the Tribunal.
19. Needless to say the insurance company has right to
recover the compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle as
per award dated 11.10.2013.
20. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
23.12.2025
sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No
Whether reportable: Yes / No
13 of 13
