Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lali Devi And Ors vs Behram Parkash And Ors on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2620-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2620-2018 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 14/11/2025
Date of Pronouncement:-18.11.2025
Uploaded on:-18.11.2025
Lali Devi and ors. ......Appellants
vs.
Behram Parkash and ors. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Kamal Rana, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
31.05.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram in
the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the
claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.9,31,000/- along with interest @8% per
annum, on account of death of Rajendra Kumar in a Motor Vehicular Accident,
occurred on 10.01.2015.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to
quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of
the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the
amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be
1 of 10
enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company,
however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on
the higher side. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid
down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same
are as under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent
decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th)
where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend
more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
2 of 10
getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother
alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence
to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings,
only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor
and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family
of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas³, 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.
3 of 10
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under
Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following
aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different
ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has
granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of
care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to
loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh
refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact
that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
4 of 10
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this
aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by
the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore,
we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that
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
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement
should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in
respect of those heads.
* * * * *
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
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.
5 of 10
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 paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 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."
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC
130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) has
settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced
as under:-
6 of 10
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² 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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation".
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.
7 of 10
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised 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.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on
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 Sethi². 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.
8 of 10
9. A bare perusal of the case shows that the deceased was 42 years of
age at the time of accident, as per treatment record of PGI, Rohtak (Ex P5), which
was also corroborated from the testimony of Smt Lali (PW6) widow of the
deceased and the same was not disputed by the insurance company. A perusal of
the award indicates that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the
deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month by doing the guess work, as the deceased was
stated to be working as a mason therefore the monthly income of the deceased has
to be taken as per the minimum wages for skilled labour prevalent at the relevant
time in State of Haryana which was Rs.6406.67/- per month. Therefore this court
deems it fit to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.6500/- per month.
10. A further Perusal of the Record shows that the amount awarded for
loss of consortium, funeral expenses is on the higher side and deserves to be
modified. Moreover, the learned tribunal, has erred in making 1/4th deduction
towards personal expenditure instead of 1/3rd as per the settled law. Further
nothing has been awarded under the head of loss of estate, future prospects.
Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated
31.05.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, Gurugram is modified accordingly.
The claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as per the
calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.6500/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.1625/- (25% of 6500)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.2709/- (8125X 1/3rd)
expenditure 1/3rd
9 of 10
4. Total Income Rs.5416/-(8125-2709)
5 Annual Dependency Rs.9,09,888/- (5416X12X14)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200/-
Spousal: Rs. 48,400/-x1
Parental: Rs. 48,400/-x2
Total Compensation Rs.10,91,388/-
Deduction Rs.9,31,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.1,60,388/- (10,91,388-9,31,000)
12. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants are granted the interest
@ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition
till the date of its realization.
13. Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of
two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to
disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts
of the claimants, as per award dated 31.05.2017. The claimants are directed to
furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
18.11.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
10 of 10
