Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimla And Anr vs Surender And Ors on 10 November, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-4170-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 10.11.2025
Bimla & Anr ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Surender & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, 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, Jind (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') vide the impugned
award dated 01.05.2023 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
04.04.2018.
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 ₹8,500/-
2 Future Prospects - 10% ₹9,350/- [₹8,500 + ₹850]
3 Deduction - 50% ₹4,675/- [₹9,350 - ₹4,675]
4 Annual Income ₹56,100/- [₹4,675 x 12]
5 Multiplier - 9 ₹5,04,900/- [₹56,100 x 9]
authenticity of this judgment/order.
Loss of estate and funeral
₹30,000/-
6 expenses
7 Loss of spousal consortium ₹40,000/-
8 Loss of parental consortium ₹40,000/-
9 Medical expenses ₹2,14,939/-
Total Compensation ₹8,29,839/-
Interest 7.5%
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
he does not challenge the income, addition of future prospects and multiplier
as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the Tribunal has wrongly
applied 50% deduction inasmuch as there are two claimants in the present case
being widow and son of the deceased, hence, deduction of 1/3rd ought to have
been applied. It is further the contention of the learned counsel 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 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].
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.
authenticity of this judgment/order.
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, addition of future prospects
and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained
accordingly. However, the Tribunal has wrongly applied 50% deduction
inasmuch as the number of claimants is two being widow and son of the
deceased, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/3rd would be applicable
instead of 50%. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional
heads 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 and son of the deceased) would also be
entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of
consortium. An amount of ₹2,14,939/- awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses is maintained. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is
as under :
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income ₹8,500/-
2 Annual Income ₹1,02,000/- [₹8,500 x 12]
3 Deduction - 1/3rd ₹68,000/- [₹1,02,000 - ₹34,000]
4 Future Prospects - 10% ₹74,800/- [₹68,000 + ₹6,800]
5 Multiplier - 9 ₹6,73,200/- [₹74,800 x 9]
6 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
8 Medical expenses ₹2,14,939/-
authenticity of this judgment/order.
9 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 1] ₹48,000/-
(ii) Spousal ₹48,000/-
(Total ₹96,000/-)
Total Compensation ₹10,20,139/-
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
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. 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.
10.11.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
authenticity of this judgment/order.
