Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishima Goyal And Ors vs Jaswant Singh And Ors on 5 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031603
265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-7454-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 05.03.2025
Rishima Goyal & Ors ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Jaswant Singh & Anr. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
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, Moga (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') vide
the impugned award dated 25.07.2016 in a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on 25.02.2014.
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 Annual income ₹5,50,000/-
2 Deduction 1/3rd [₹5,50,000 - 1,83,333] = ₹3,66,666.67/-
3 Multiplier of 16 [₹3,66,666.67 x 16] = ₹58,66,666.67
(rounded off as ₹58,66,700/-)
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031603
FAO-7454-2016 (O&M) -2-
4 Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000/-
5 Love and affection ₹1,00,000/- (to parents)
₹50,000/- (to children)
6. Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-
7 Loss of estate ₹20,000/-
Total Compensation ₹61,61,700/-
Interest 8%
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has not laid any
challenge to the income of the deceased i.e. ₹5,50,000/- per annum as
assessed by the Tribunal as well as the multiplier of '16'. However, he has
contended that deduction as 1/3rd has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal
whereas it ought to have been 1/4th inasmuch as there were five dependents
upon the deceased. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the
claimant-appellants that no addition has been made towards future prospects
and that the amounts awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' as well as
under the conventional heads are on the lower side. In support of his
contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of 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].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that the income of the deceased has been
assessed on the higher side and that sufficient amount has already been
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of
any enhancement.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031603
FAO-7454-2016 (O&M) -3-
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case, no challenge has been laid by the learned
counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income of the deceased i.e.
₹5,50,000/- per annum as well as multiplier of '16' as applied by the
Tribunal and coupled with the fact that there is no appeal by the Insurance
Company and, hence, the same are maintained. The Tribunal has wrongly
applied a deduction as 1/3rd inasmuch as there were five dependents and,
hence, a deduction of 1/4th would be applicable. Further, no addition has
been made by the Tribunal towards future prospects. The deceased was 34
years of age at the time of the accident and, hence, as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40%
addition is made towards future prospects. 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
claimants (wife, two children, parents and grandmother of the deceased)
would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards
loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Annual Income ₹5,50,000/-
2 Deduction 1/4th ₹4,12,500/- [₹5,50,000 - 1,37,500]
3 Future Prospects - 40% ₹5,77,500/- [₹4,12,500 + 1,65,000]
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031603
FAO-7454-2016 (O&M) -4-
4 Multiplier - 16 ₹92,40,000/- [₹5,77,500 x 16]
5 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
6 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
7 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 2] ₹96,000/-
(ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 3] ₹1,44,000/-
(iii) Spousal's ₹48,000/-
(Total ₹2,88,000/-)
Total Compensation ₹95,64,000/-
8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 8% 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.
05.03.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
