Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi Sapra vs Nafe Singh And Ors on 13 November, 2025
FAO-95-2003(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(229) FAO-95-2003(O&M)
Reserved on: 11.11.2025
Pronounced on: 13.11.2025
SHASHI SAPRA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents
*****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded vide award dated 20.08.2002 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, whereby the compensation of ₹13,72,000/-
along with interest at 9% per annum was granted on account of death of
Surender Kumar Sapra in a motor vehicular accident that took place on
21.05.1998.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The brief facts of the matter are that on 21.05.1998, Surender Kumar
Sapra, employed as a Senior Store Keeper and, along with other colleagues,
having completed his duties at Engineers India Limited (a Government of India
undertaking) in connection with the Panipat Refinery Project, was returning to
his residence in a Trax Jeep bearing registration No. HR-07B-4504, driven by
Karan Singh. Upon reaching near Baburpur Mandi, close to the Ganda Nala
1 of 8
bridge, a tractor bearing registration No. (HTC/6156) approached from the
opposite direction. It is alleged that the Trax Jeep was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner and collided head-on with the tractor, causing the jeep to
overturn, as a result of which Surender Kumar Sapra sustained grievous injuries
and succumbed to the same the following day, i.e., 22.05.1998. The claimants
thereafter instituted the present petition seeking compensation of ₹60,00,000/-
on account of death of Surender Kumar Sapra.
3. Upon an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of both the vehicles involved. It held that the drivers of the
Trax Jeep and the tractor were equally at fault, a conclusion drawn primarily
from the ocular testimonies of Ravinder @ Billu (PW-1) and Jasbir Singh (PW-
4), as well as from the FIR (Ex. RA) lodged promptly after the occurrence. For
the purpose of assessing compensation, the Tribunal took the monthly income
of the deceased to be ₹15,000/-, deducted one-third towards his personal and
living expenses, applied the multiplier of 15, and computed the loss of
dependency at ₹18,00,000/-. From this amount, a sum of ₹4,37,167/- (rounded
to ₹4,38,000/-), received by the widow of deceased under the Group Personal
Accident Scheme of the Department, was deducted, bringing the figure to
₹13,62,000/-. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal further awarded
₹2,500/- towards loss of estate, ₹2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and ₹5,000/-
towards loss of consortium, totalling ₹10,000/-. Accordingly, the overall
compensation assessed and awarded to the claimants came to ₹13,72,000/-.
CONTENTIONS
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation
assessed by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate. It is urged that the
2 of 8
learned Tribunal failed to correctly assess the income of the deceased, despite
cogent evidence establishing that he was drawing a substantially higher salary
as a Senior Store Keeper in a Government of India undertaking. Learned
counsel for appellant submits that the appellants were entitled to addition
towards future prospects and that the appropriate multiplier, corresponding to
the age of the deceased, ought to have been applied. It is further argued that the
Tribunal erred in deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses
when the deceased had four dependents, and that the correct deduction should
have been one-fourth. Additionally, it is submitted that the amount received
under the Group Personal Accident Scheme was wrongly deducted, as such
benefits cannot be set off against the statutory compensation payable under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The sums awarded under the conventional heads are also
asserted to be inadequate. On all these grounds, the appellants seek
enhancement of the compensation.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
6. I have carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
representing the appellants and have thoroughly examined the entire paper
book.
7. At the outset, it is observed that the finding of the learned Tribunal
regarding negligence is well reasoned and supported by the ocular and
documentary evidence, particularly the testimonies of Ravinder @ Billu (PW-1)
and Jasbir Singh (PW-4), as well as from the FIR (Ex. RA). This Court finds no
perversity or infirmity in such conclusion and, therefore, upholds the finding
that the drivers of both vehicles were negligent in equal proportion.
However, its approach in awarding a sum of ₹13,72,000/- is legally
3 of 8
unsustainable, as the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess the actual
income of the deceased, to make the requisite addition towards future prospects,
further to apply the correct multiplier, and to award appropriate amounts under
the conventional heads. The further deduction of the amount received under the
Group Personal Accident Scheme is also erroneous, such receipt being wholly
independent of the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored the necessity of a
structured and uniform methodology in the determination of compensation in
motor accident fatality claims so as to ensure the grant of "just compensation"
within the meaning of Section 166 of the Act.
8. The salary certificate (Ex. P-2) on record establishes that the deceased
was drawing a gross monthly salary of ₹17,237/-. The learned Tribunal,
however, reduced this figure to ₹15,000/- while accounting for income tax
liability. This finding was based on the calculation sheet of salary (Ex. R-1)
produced by S.S. Fonia (RW-2), which showed that the deceased had paid an
amount of ₹11,239/- as income tax during the financial year 1997-1998.
Although no income-tax return or other documentary evidence was placed on
record to prove the exact taxable income or the quantum of tax deducted at
source, the learned Tribunal was justified in making a notional deduction
towards income tax, having regard to the clear indication in "Ex. R-1" that such
payment had been made. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly
took into consideration the statutory liability of the deceased and reasonably
assessed his monthly income at ₹15,000/- after deducting the notional amount
of tax.
9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that an additional
sum of ₹2,500/- ought to be included towards "other benefits" so as to enhance
4 of 8
the monthly income to ₹19,737/- is devoid of merit. The said submission is
misconceived, as it neither specifies any distinct recurring benefit nor
establishes that any further monetary advantage was payable to the dependants
beyond what has already been received, such as leave encashment (₹49,600/-),
gratuity (₹1,03,032/-), the contributory provident fund (₹2,68,592/-) and
Compensation in lieu of employment (₹1,00,000/-). Such benefits were in
Group Accident Personal; accident amount (₹4,37,167/-) fact duly disbursed to
the widow of the deceased after his death, and cannot be treated as a component
of monthly income for the computation of loss of dependency. Therefore, the
vague and unspecified contention regarding "other benefits" was, therefore,
correctly rejected by the learned Tribunal as well as no material was produced
to demonstrate that any further other benefits accrued to the family beyond the
amounts already received by the widow of deceased.
10. Further, the deduction of ₹4,37,167/- (rounded off ₹4,38,000) received
under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPA) from the amount
of compensation by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law. The settled position,
as laid down in Helen C. Rebello and Others v. Maharashtra SRTC, 1999 (1)
SCC 90; Vimal Kanwar (supra); and Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2019) (17) SCC 465, in the said cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank
balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable
by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor
Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction.
Therefore, in the present case such receipts cannot be brought within the ambit
5 of 8
of "pecuniary advantage" deductible from compensation under Section 168 of
the Act. The benefit received by widow/appellant under the GPA Scheme being
a service-related entitlement, independent of the cause of accidental death,
cannot be adjusted against the statutory compensation payable to the
dependants. The deduction made by the learned Tribunal is thus unsustainable
in law and the said amount is liable to be restored to the claimants. Thus, while
affirming the finding on negligence, the computation of compensation made by
the learned Tribunal requires modification to the extent of the deduction made
towards the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPA). The said
deduction being contrary to law, as discussed hereinabove, is wrongly made.
11. As it is noted that the computation of compensation is not in conformity
with the settled principles of law governing assessment of just compensation.
The learned Tribunal has failed to make additions towards future prospects,
which is now mandatory in the case of Government employees, as held by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the deduction of one-third
towards personal expenses is not correct to the standard laid down in Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it has been held that where the
dependents are 4 to 6 in number, the appropriate deduction should be one-
fourth. Therefore the correct deduction applicable in the present case is one-
fourth and not one-third as the deceased is survived by four dependants; his
widow, two children, and his mother. Additionally, the learned Tribunal has not
awarded amount under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses, which have been recognised as integral
components of just compensation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra) and later affirmed in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
6 of 8
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Accordingly, the
compensation is required to be reassessed by applying the above judgments and
considering the age of the deceased as 41 years (as per the salary certificate
Ex. P2). The reassessment is structured as under:
REASSESSED COMPUTATION
Particulars Tribunal Award Reassessed Award
(₹) (₹)
Monthly Income 15,000/- 15000/-
Annual Income 1,80,000/- 1,80,000/-
Income With Future x 2,34,000/-
Prospects (30%) (1,80,000 + 54000)
Deduction 60,000/- 58500/-
(4 dependents) (4 Dependents)
(1/3rd For Personal (1/4th For Personal
Expenses) Expenses)
Annual Contribution To 1,20,000/- 1,75,500/-
Family
Loss Of Dependency 18,00,000/- 24,57,000/-
(1,20,000 × 15) (1,75,500 × 14)
Spousal Consortium 5000/- 40,000/-
Parental Consortium x 80,000/-
(40000 × 2)
Filial Consortium x 40,000/-
Loss Of Estate 2,500/- 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 2,000/- 15,000/-
Total ₹18,10,.000/- ₹26,47,000/-
(Rounded Off)
₹13,72,000/- (Payable)
(After deduction of GPA)
7 of 8
15. Resultantly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
enhanced from ₹13,72,000/- to ₹26,47,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry
the same interest at rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization. Respondent no.1 & 2 and 3 & 4 being liable in equal
proportion on account of composite negligence, are liable to pay compensation
in proportion of 50:50. The liability of all the respondents shall remain joint and
several as held by the learned Tribunal.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with modification of the award to
the above extent only.
17. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stands also disposed of.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
13.11.2025 JUDGE
Saurav Pathania
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
