Punjab-Haryana High Court
Usha Rani And Others vs Narender Kumar And Others on 19 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037838
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
293 FAO-3451-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19.03.2025
Usha Rani and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Narender Kumar and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide
award dated 03.08.2021 on account of death of Karnail Singh (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased').
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 Rs.8,827/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% [8,827 + 2,206] = Rs.11,033/-
3 Deduction - 1/4th [11,033 - 2,758] = Rs.8,275/-
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037838
4 Annual income after applying [Rs.8,275 x 12 x 13] =
the multiplier of 13 Rs.12,90,900/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
7 Loss of consortium
(i) Spousal Rs.44,000/-
(ii) Parental Rs.44,000/-
(iii) Filial Rs.44,000/-
Rs.1,32,000/-
Total compensation Rs.14,55,900/-
Interest 9% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
though he does not challenge the deduction, addition of future prospects and
the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, the income of the
deceased has wrongly been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.8,827/- per month
inasmuch as even the minimum wages for an unskilled worker at the
relevant point of time were Rs.9,024/- per month. Learned counsel for the
claimant-appellants would further contend that since the deceased was an
agriculturist and was also doing the business of sweet vendor/maker, his
income ought to have been assessed as that of a skilled worker. Learned
counsel for the claimant-appellants would also contend that the amounts
awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of
consortium' are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In support of his contention, 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037838
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, 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. Heard.
7. In the present case, no appeal has been filed by respondent
No.3-Insurance Company. Since there is no challenge to the deduction,
addition of future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the
same are accordingly maintained. The income of the deceased as assessed by
the Tribunal in the opinion of this Court is on the lower side inasmuch as it
was the case of the claimant-appellants as testified by PW-1, PW-3 and
PW-4 that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also doing the business
of sweet vendor/maker and nothing could be elicited by the respondents
from the cross-examination of the said witnesses to disbelieve their
testimonies. The accident in the present case had taken place on 21.10.2019
and as on 01.07.2019 the minimum wages for a skilled worker in the State of
Haryana were Rs.10,969/-. Taking a cue therefrom, the income of the
deceased is assessed as Rs.10,969/- per month. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037838
claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20%
increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase)
towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants would also be entitled
to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.
8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.10,969/-
2 Annual income [Rs.10,969 x 12] = Rs.1,31,628/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.1,31,628 - 32,907] = Rs.98,721/-
4 Future prospects @ 25% [Rs.98,721 + 24,681] = Rs.1,23,402/-
5 Multiplier of 13 [Rs.1,23,402 x 13] = Rs.16,04,226/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(ii) Parental [Rs.48,000 x 3] = Rs.1,44,000/-
(iii) Filial Rs.48,000/-
Rs.2,40,000/-
Total Rs.18,80,226/-
9. 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.
10. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [2025 INSC 361 : Civil
Appeal No._____ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.4484 of 2020 decided
on 18.03.2025], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be
transferred by the respondent No.3-Insurance company in the bank
account(s) of the claimant-appellants within six weeks from today and the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037838
apportionment thereof shall be as per the percentage directed by the
Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite
documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-
appellants to respondent No.3-Insurance company within a period of two
weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by respondent
No.3-Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks
thereafter alongwith up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by
the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.
10. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the
Tribunal is modified and the present appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
19.03.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
