Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shakuntala Devi And Ors vs Vinod Kumar And Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-6916-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 07.11.2025
Shakuntala Devi & Ors ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Vinod Kumar & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Mallika Dhillon, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Sidhu, 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, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') vide the
impugned award dated 03.02.2016 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred
on 10.01.2013.
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are
not being adverted to 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 ₹7,000/-
2 Future Prospects - 50% ₹10,500/- [₹7,000 + ₹3,500]
authenticity of this judgment/order.
3 Deduction - 1/5th ₹8,400/- [₹10,500 - ₹2,100]
4 Annual Income ₹1,00,800/- [₹8,400 x 12]
5 Multiplier - 16 ₹16,12,800/- [₹1,00,800 x 16]
6 Funeral expenses ₹50,000/-
7 Love and affection ₹1,00,000/-
8 Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000/-
9 Medical expenses ₹27,725/-
Total Compensation ₹18,90,525/-
Interest 9%
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that she does
not challenge the income, deduction, future prospects and multiplier as
applied by the Tribunal. She, however, states that the compensation awarded
under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' is
not in accordance with the law laid down by 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.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. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance
Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned
counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, future prospects, deduction
and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained
accordingly. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads
authenticity of this judgment/order.
and under the head 'loss of consortium' is 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),
hence, the claimants 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 (widow, four children and parents of the deceased)
would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss
of consortium. An amount of ₹27,725/- awarded towards medical expenses is
maintained. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income ₹7,000/-
2 Annual Income ₹84,000/- [₹7,000 x 12]
3 Deduction - 1/5th ₹67,200/- [₹84,000 - ₹16,800]
4 Future Prospects - 50% ₹1,00,800/- [₹67,200 + ₹33,600]
5 Multiplier - 16 ₹16,12,800/- [₹1,00,800 x 16]
6 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
8 Medical expenses ₹27,725/-
9 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 4] ₹1,92,000/-
(ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 2] ₹96,000/-
(iii) Spousal ₹48,000/-
(Total ₹3,36,000/-)
Total Compensation ₹20,12,525/-
8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded
by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
9. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025
SCC OnLine SC 567], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be
authenticity of this judgment/order.
transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants
within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the
direction of the Tribunal and the share of the minor claimants shall be kept in
fixed deposits by the Bank concerned. The particulars of the bank account(s)
alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by
the claimants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from
the date of this order and needful shall be done by the 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 present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
07.11.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
authenticity of this judgment/order.
