Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harcharan Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 November, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
FAO-2180-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision:21.11.2025
Harcharan Singh and Another
...Appellants
versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate
for appellants.
appellant
Mr. Abhinav Mahant, Asst. A.G., Haryana
***
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the parents of the deceased,
Rajpal Singh (hereinafter
(h referred to as the 'deceased
eceased'), who had died in a
road accident which took place on 20.06.1996, on account of rash and
negligent driving of Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR
HR-
02-A-8860,
8860, challenging the impugned award dated 05.01.2001 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to
as 'Tribunal''),
), vide which the appellants were found entitled to total
compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-.
Rs.1,56,000/
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as
recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tr
Tribunal, are not being
adverted to herein for sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case has awarded the following
compensation:
compensation:-
Monthly Income Rs. 3,000/
3,000/- Rs.36,000/-
per month per annum
Deduction 1/3rd
1 of 4
FAO-2180-20
2002 (O&M) -2-
Total Compensation Rs. 1,56,000/-
awarded
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants--claimants does not challenge
the income of the deceased as assessed,
assessed however, the amounts awarded
under the head of multiplier is stated to bee on the lower side. It was
asserted that no addition has been made towards future prospects which
ought to be 40% in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ors., 2017 (16)
Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors
SCC 680.. Learned
Lea counsel for the appellants
appellants-claimants also asserts that
since the age of the deceased was 24 years, multiplier of '18' ought to
have been applied as per the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others
Vs. Anr , 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 770.
s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
Also, the amounts under conventional heads i.e loss of estate, funeral
expenses, loss of consortium are not in consonance with National
Ors., 2017 (16) SCC
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors
680, Magma General
General Insurance Company Limited V
Vs. Nathu Ram
Ors 2018 (18) SCC 130 and N. Jayasree & Ors.
alias Chuhu Ram & Ors.,
Ltd, 2021 (4)
Vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd
RCR (Civil) 642.
5. Per contra,
contra learned
rned counsel for respondent No.
No.1 has vehemently
argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation
in the present case and there is no scope of enhancement.
6. In the present case, since no challenge has been made by the
learned counsel for the appellants-claimants too the income of the deceased
as assessed by the Tribunal, the same is accordingly upheld. Since the
2 of 4
FAO-2180-20
2002 (O&M) -3-
deceased was 24 years of
of age at the time of accident, multiplier of '18'
would be applicable instead of '14' as per the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court
ourt in case of Sarla Verma (supra)
(supra). The Tribunal has erred in
not making any addition towards loss of future prospects. In the present
case since the deceased was 24 years of age, an addition of 40% would be
applicable as per the law laid down in Pranay S
Sethi (supra). The Learned
Tribunal initiaally took the deduction as 1/3rd bby presuming deceased would
be married latter deduction of 2500 was madde from income to calculate
loss of dependency.
dependency Keeping
eeping in view that the deceased was a bachelor and
the number of dependants are two, the deduction ought to have been 1/2.
The appellants-claimants
appellants shall also be entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.7,500/
Rs 7,500/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- to each of the appellants-claimants
claimants towards filial consortium.
7. Accordingly, the re-worked
re worked compen
compensation to which the
appellants-claimants
claimants are entitled to is as under:
under:-
Income Rs.3,000/-- Rs.3,000/- per
per month month
Future Prospects 40% Rs.4,200/-
(Rs.3,000+1200)
Deduction 1/2 Rs.2,100/-
(Rs.4,200-2100)
2100)
Total loss of 2,100 x 12 x 18 Rs.4,53,600/-
dependency
Loss of Estate Rs. 7,500/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 7,500/-
Loss of parental Rs. 15,000/- x 2 Rs. 30,000/-
consortium to
claimant nos. 1 & 2
Total Compensation Rs.4,98,600/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation Rs. 1,56,000/-
awarded by the
3 of 4
FAO-2180-20
2002 (O&M) -4-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs 4,98,000/
4,98,000/- Rs.3,42,600/-
compensation (awarded in appeal) -
Rs 1,56,000/
1,56,000/-
(awarded by the
Tribunal)
8. The claim petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
The appellants-claimants
appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum on enhanced compensation so awarded from date of filing
of claim petition till realization. The apportionment and liability of
respondents shall be as per the award. The awarded amount shall be
deposited within six weeks from the date of this order.
9. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. AIR 2025 SC 1713, after
calculation of the enhanced amount the same be transferred by respondent
No.1
1 in the bank account(s)
account of the appellants--claimants within a period of
six weeks from today. The particulars of the bank account
account(s) along with
requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the
appellants-claimants
claimants to respondent No.1 with
within a period of two weeks
from today and needful
needful shall be done by respondent N
No.1 after verification
thereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along with up
up-to-date
interest.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
JUDGE
21.11.2025
Sunil Chander
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
