Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Deepak Kumar And Ors on 11 November, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
247-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5971-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.11.2025
Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku ... Appellant
Versus
Deepak Kumar and Others ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Singla, 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, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award
dated 21.05.2016 on account of death of Simran (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased').
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as
recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being
adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Notional income ₹15,000/-
2 Multiplier - 15 [₹15,000 x 15] = ₹2,25,000/-
3 Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-
4 Loss of love and affection ₹1,00,000/-
Total Compensation ₹3,50,000/-
Interest @ 6% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that
the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would further contend that the
Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as only ₹15,000/-
per annum and has applied a multiplier of '15', which ought to have been as
per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker with a multiplier of
'18'. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would further contend that
the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects, which
ought to have been 40%. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Baby Sakshi Greola
vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238], Kajal vs.
Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27], Karuna Parmar vs.
Prakash Sinha & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2317 of 2025 arising out of SLP
(C) No.6428 of 2023 decided 11.02.2025] and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs.
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. [2025 INSC 1070].
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend
that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as ₹15,000/-
per annum and the multiplier of '15' has also correctly been applied and that
there is no scope of enhancement. He would further contend that the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses as well as loss of love and
affection is on the higher side. He has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan
& Anr. [2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 660] and National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680].
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case, the deceased was a 9 years old female child
and the claimant is her father. Vide the impugned award the Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of ₹3,50,000/- by notionally assessing the income of
the deceased as ₹15,000/- per annum and applying a multiplier of '15' which,
in the opinion of this Court, is on the lower side keeping in view the fact that
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a welfare legislation and also the recent
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Karuna Parmar (supra) while relying on the judgment in the case of Baby
Sakshi Greola (supra), awarded the compensation in the case of a 6 years'
old child who had died in an accident which occurred on 07.03.2014 as per
the minimum wages applicable for a skilled worker in the year 2014. Further,
in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under :
"9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor
appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment
and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is
evident that the Courts below have failed to take into
account the monthly income of the appellant while
determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a
well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of
law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent
disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in
the same category as a non-earning individual for the
purposes of assessing the amount of compensation
because the child was not engaged in gainful employment
at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation
of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to
be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages
payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant
period in the respective State where the cause of action
arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court,
in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil)
27], and of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad
Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238]."
8. Their Lordships in the above referred cases assessed the income
of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker by
applying a multiplier of '18' besides granting future prospects and
compensation under the other heads. Taking a cue from the afore-referred
judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the
deceased in the present case as per the minimum wage for a skilled worker as
applicable in the State of Punjab at the time of accident, which took place on
31.07.2015, which were ₹8,530/- per month and a multiplier of '18' would be
applicable.
9. Further, since no addition has been made by the Tribunal towards
loss of future prospects, an addition of 40% would be made and keeping in
view the age of the child, 50% deduction would also be applicable. 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 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], hence, the claimant
would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate
and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to
₹48,000/- (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly,
the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income ₹8,530/-
2 Annual Income ₹1,02,360/- [₹8,530 x 12]
3 Deduction - 50% ₹51,180/- [₹1,02,360 - ₹51,180]
4 Future Prospects - 40% ₹71,652/- [₹51,180 + ₹20,472]
5 Multiplier - 18 ₹12,89,736/- [₹71,652 x 18]
6 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Filial [₹48,000/- x 1] ₹48,000/-
Total Compensation ₹13,73,736/-
10. 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.
11. 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 of the claimant
within six weeks from today. The particulars of the bank account alongwith
the requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant
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.
12. 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.
11.11.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
jk JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
