Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shandhya Devi And Ors vs Sanjiv Kumar And Ors on 24 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010913
224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-3774-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.01.2025
Shandhya Devi & Anr. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Sanjiv Kumar & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. TVS Lehal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. APS Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-
appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'),
vide the impugned award dated 21.01.2016.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for
the sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income ₹6,000/-
2 Annual income [₹6,000 x 12] = ₹72,000/-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010913
FAO-3774-2016 (O&M) -2-
3 Deduction 1/3rd [₹72,000 - 24,000] = ₹48,000/-
4 Multiplier of 5 [₹48,000 x 5] = ₹2,40,000/-
5 Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-
6 Loss of consortium ₹25,000/-
7 Love and affection ₹25,000/-
Total Compensation ₹3,15,000/-
Interest 9% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹6,000/- per month
inasmuch as the minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevailing at the
time of the accident were ₹6,855/-per month. It is further the contention of
the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that though deduction of 1/3rd
was rightly applied, however, multiplier '5' has wrongly been applied by the
Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been '7' as the deceased was 65 years of
age at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the claimant-
appellants would further contend that the amounts awarded under the
conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' are also
not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.
[(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S
General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010913
FAO-3774-2016 (O&M) -3-
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of
any enhancement.
6 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as ₹6,000/- per month. However, the minimum wages of an
unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident which took place on
08.06.2015 were ₹6,855/- per month and, hence, the income of the deceased
is assessed as ₹6,855/- per month. There is no challenge to the deduction of
1/3rd as applied by the Tribunal, however, multiplier '5' has wrongly been
applied inasmuch as the deceased was 65 years of age at the time of accident
and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier '7' would be applicable. Further, the
amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head 'loss of
consortium' are not as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance
Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra) and, hence, the
claimant-appellants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase)
towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards
funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants (wife and son of the deceased)
would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards
loss of consortium. The rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal is
maintained. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010913
FAO-3774-2016 (O&M) -4-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income ₹6,855/-
2 Annual Income ₹82,260/- [₹6,855 x 12]
3 Deduction 1/3rd ₹54,840/- [₹82,260 - 27,420]
4 Multiplier - 7 ₹3,83,880/- [₹54,840 x 7]
5 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
6 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
7 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental ₹48,000/-
(ii) Spousal's ₹48,000/-
(Total ₹96,000/-)
Total Compensation ₹5,15,880/-
8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
The amount shall be apportioned between the claimants as directed by the
Tribunal.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
24.01.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
