Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhmi Devi vs Harpal Singh And Ors on 20 November, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-7260-2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-7260-2015 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 18/11/2025
Date of Pronouncement:-20.11.2025
Uploaded on:20.11.2025
Lacchmi Devi ......Appellant
vs.
Harpal Singh and ors. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Kavish Jindal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Priya Kaushik and Ms. Haridhi Aggarwal, Advocates
for respondent No. 3.
* * *
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
25.02.2015 assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda 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
claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.6,00,400/- along with interest @9% per
annum, on account of death of Suresh Kumar @ Gogi in a Motor Vehicular
Accident, occurred on 05.04.2013.
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.
1 of 12
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the
amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be
enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 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
standardized 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
2 of 12
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
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-
3 of 12
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.
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
4 of 12
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
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
5 of 12
years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be
read as actual salary less tax.
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
6 of 12
settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced
as under:-
"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.
7 of 12
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
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
8 of 12
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium.
9. A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased, Suresh Kumar, was
stated to be 47 years of age at the time of the accident. However, post mortem
report Ex.C-2 reveals that the age of the deceased was 46 years at the time of his
death.
10. It is settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that in absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to
accept the age of deceased as per post mortem report. The relevant extract of the
same is reproduced as under:-
"11. The amount arrived at by the High Court of the monthly
income being Rs.5,819/- (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and
Nineteen) as against the claim of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
appears to be on the lower side as the total earning of the deceased
from family pension itself ought to have been considered which itself
would come to Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and
Thirty-Seven) to which the notional wages as a home maker had to be
added, which we find is reasonable as has been taken by the High
Court at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). Thus, the
monthly income would come to Rs.7,637/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Six
Hundred and Thirty-Seven), which we are inclined to round off at
Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) Coming to the multiplier factor
which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the
deceased was aged about 45 years as per the Post-Mortem Report
which is a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased. The
purported discrepancy in the age with regard to that of the claimant
and the deceased is erroneous for the reason that when the claim was
filed, appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of 15
years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law cannot be
9 of 12
said to be totally devoid of reality given the contextual and prevalent
societal norms in vogue at the time of marriage of the deceased which
could have been at least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or
about the 1970s. Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to
the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased
as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the
benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years. With regard to
the loss of love and affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every three
years for loss of consortium which has been interpreted in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include
spousal, parental, and filial consortium. Thus, there being five
claimants the amount shall be [Rs.48,000/- x 5] which comes to
Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand) payable under
the head of loss of love and affection."
11. In view of the above, referred to judgment, the age of deceased
Suresh Kumar is ascertained as 46 years at the time of accident. The learned
Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13.
12. Now coming to the income of the deceased, the deceased was stated
to be earning Rs.35000/- per month by working as a Halwai, however, in the
absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the said income, the learned
Tribunal rightly resorted to assessing the income of the claimant based on the
minimum wages applicable at the relevant time. However, the income as assessed
by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the prevailing minimum wage
notifications. As per the notified minimum wages applicable to skilled workers
during the relevant period, the correct monthly income ought to have been
assessed at Rs.5487/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant may be
reasonably rounded off and reassessed at Rs.5500/-.
10 of 12
13. A further perusal of the award reveals that no future prospects are
added to the income of the deceased for the calculation of total income. As per the
settled law on compensation, 25% is to be added as future prospects.
Furthermore, nothing has been awarded under the head of loss of estate.
Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
14. 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
20.05.2015 is modified accordingly. The appellant-claimant is entitled to the entire
enhanced amount of compensation from the respondent-Insurance Company, as
per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.5500/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs. 1375/- (5500X25%)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs. 2292/- (6875X1/3rd)
expenditure 1/3rd
4. Total Income Rs.4583/- (6875-2292)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.714948/- (4583X12X13)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.20,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.50,000/-
Spousal : Rs.50000X1
Total Compensation Rs.8,03,098/-
Deduction
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,00,400/-
Enhanced amount Rs.2,02,698/- (803098-60040)
15. 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
11 of 12
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 of compensation from the date of filing of
claim petition till the date of its realization.
16. Accordingly, the 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 date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount
of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimant/appellant as
per ratio settled by the Tribunal in its award. The claimant/appellant is directed to
furnish her bank account details to the Tribunal.
17. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
20.11.2025
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
12 of 12
