Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tabsum And Others vs Usman And Others on 6 November, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
FAO-1645-2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
FAO-1645-2019
Date of decision : 06.11.2025
Tabsum and others
... Appellant
Versus
Usman and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Ajay Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Vishal Walia, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. The widow, minor children and mother of the deceased
Shokeen have filed the present appeal for enhancement. Vide award dated
11.01.2018, an amount of Rs.22,12,000/- was awarded to the appellants-
claimants in equal share along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as
compensation on account of death of Shokeen, which had taken place in a
road accident on 22.01.2017 due to being hit by the motor vehicle which
was owned by respondent no.2 and was being driven by respondent no.1
and was insured by respondent no.3.
2. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present
1 of 11
case is as to whether the present appellants are entitled to any enhanced
amount of compensation as the other aspects have not been disputed before
this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the
present case, the amounts on accounts of loss of estate and funeral expenses
have been awarded as Rs.15,000/- each, whereas on the said counts, the
appellants should have been awarded Rs.18,000/- each in view of settled
law. It is further submitted that there are as many as six claimants, who were
all dependent upon the deceased and on account of loss of consortium, only
an amount of Rs.40,000/- had been awarded whereas the same should have
been awarded to the tune of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 6). It is further
submitted that on the additional compensation, interest at the rate of 9% per
annum should be awarded. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in cases titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as
(2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has
referred to the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court, vide which
notice of motion was issued and has highlighted the fact that since there was
delay of 169 days in filing the appeal, thus, as per the statement made at the
2 of 11
time of condoning the delay, the interest for the above said period of 169
days is not to be given to the appellants. It is further submitted that the
interest sought to be charged for the enhanced compensation is highly
excessive and the highest rate of interest which can be granted to the present
appellants for the enhanced compensation is 6% per annum.
5. The order dated 29.10.2025 which has been highlighted by
learned counsel for respondent no.3 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Present:- Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate
for Mr. Gourav Verma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
***
CM-4963-CII-2019
This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC
for condonation of delay of 22 days in re-filing the present
appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same
is allowed and the delay of 22 days in re-filing the present
appeal is condoned.
CM-4966-CII-2019
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 169 in filing the
present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that for the period of 169 days, the appellants would not claim
any interest and has prayed that the said delay be condoned.
For the reasons mentioned in the application,
which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as on account of
the fair statement made on behalf of the appellants, the present
3 of 11
application is allowed and the delay of 169 days in filing the
present appeal is hereby condoned.
As stated before this Court, the appellants would
not claim interest for the said period of 169 days.
FAO-1645-2019
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that in the present case, the only prayer of the appellant is that
the amount on the conventional heads have not been given.
At this stage, notice of motion be issued to
respondent No.3 only.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, appears and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
Adjourned to 06.11.2025.
To be shown in the urgent list.
October 29, 2025"
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted a revised
chart, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"FAO NO.1645 OF 2019 DELAY 172
APPELLANT HEREIN: CLAIMANTS / INURED / INSURANCE COMP /
OWNER / DRIVER
CHALLENGE HEREIN: Conventional head.
Tabsum & ors. ...Appellant
V/s
Usman & Ors. ...Respondents
DATE OF ACCIDENT: 22.01.2017
NATURE OF CASE: DEATH / INJURY/ DAMAGE TO VEHICLE - Death
AGE OF DECEASED/ INJURED: 28
DRIVING LICENCE / ROUTE PERMIT / INSURANCE: The Oriental
4 of 11
Insurance Co.
DETAIL OF RELIEF GRANTED /CLAIMED
DETAIL BEFORE THE Compensation payable
TRIBUNAL as per judgments
Income Monthly: 10,000 Monthly: 10,000
Annual: 1,20,000 Annual: 1,20,000
Deduction 25% (Rs.30,000) 25% (Rs.30,000)
Future prospects 40% (Rs.36,000) 40% (Rs.36,000)
Loss of estate 15000 18,000
Funeral expenses 15000 18,000
Loss of consortium Parental- 48,000 x 6 =2,88,000
Filial- 40,000/-
Spousal
Total compensation Rs.22,12,000/- Rs.24,66,000/-
Interest @ 7.5% + 3%
Difference Rs.24,66,000
22,12,000
2,54,000
Interest 66, 675
Rs.3,20,675/-
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book and has also considered the said revised chart and
the same has been found to be in accordance with law.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 42 of Sarla Verma's case
(Supra) had observed as under:-
5 of 11
"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas, 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."
A perusal of the above would show that for the age of 28 years,
multiplier of 17 is to be applied.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (Supra),
has held as under:-
"59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:-
59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
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
6 of 11
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
be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we
have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 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.
60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed
before the appropriate Bench."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that addition of some percentage of
7 of 11
the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was
also required to be taken into consideration and the said percentage was
specifically defined with respect to persons who were having a permanent
job or/were self-employed or on a fixed salary.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited's case (Supra) had further observed that in death case,
under the head of loss of consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium,
children are entitled to parental consortium. To the widow, spousal
consortium is to be given. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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.
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,co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation."
8 of 11
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 recognized 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 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 5.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on
9 of 11
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 Sethi
(supra). 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."
In the abovesaid judgment, a specific amount was awarded to
the father and sister of the deceased and thus, the amount of consortium
awarded was made dependent upon the number of claimants/legal
representatives.
11. The revised chart produced by the learned counsel for the
appellants in so far as the amounts on accounts of loss of estate, funeral
expenses and loss of consortium has been mentioned is in accordance with
law and deserves to be granted to the appellants. There are six claimants
who were dependent upon the deceased and thus, the present appellants are
entitled to Rs.2,88,000/- under the account of loss of consortium, whereas
they were granted only Rs.40,000/- on the said account. Thus, the present
appellants are held to be entitled for additional compensation of
Rs.2,54,000/-. With respect to the rate of interest, this Court is consistently
awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which rate of interest is
also reasonable in the present case.
12. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
present appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 11.01.2018 is modified
10 of 11
and respondent no.3 is directed to pay an additional amount of
compensation of Rs.2,54,000/- to the appellants along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realisation after subtracting 169 days, within a period of six weeks from
today.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 06, 2025.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
11 of 11
