[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lalita Rani And Ors vs Sahib Singh And Ors on 29 November, 2025

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M)                     -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH



                                                FAO-1844-2018 (O&M)
                                                Reserved on: 13.11.2025
                                                Date of decision: 29.11.2025
                                                Uploaded on: 29.11.2025



LALITA RANI AND ORS.                                  ......Appellants

                                Vs.

SAHIB SINGH AND ORS.                                  ......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:   Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate
           for the appellants.

           Ms. Sunita Devi, Advocate
           for Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate
           for respondent No.1 and 2.

           Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
           for respondent No.3.

           ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-7193-CII-2018

1. The present application has been filed for placing on record

additional evidence i.e. Registration Certificate (RC) of truck bearing

No.RJ-191G-229 as Annexure A-1.

2. Since, this case pertains to the year 2016 and at the relevant

time when the claim petition was under consideration of learned Tribunal,

the Registration Certificate (RC) of truck bearing No.RJ-191G-229 was

1 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -2-

never placed on record, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to place on

record, at this stage.

3. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.

FAO-1844-2018

4. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

12.04.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of

compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of

Rs.8,98,000/- on account of death of deceased Deep Kumar @ Deepak

Kumar in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 07.01.2016.

5. 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 and is

skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that

the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and

deserves to be enhanced.

7. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the

compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants be enhanced, as per latest

law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, however,

vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of

compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the

2 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -3-

appellants/claimants. Therefore, they prays for dismissal of the present

appeal.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

10. 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 getting married in a short time, in which event

3 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -4-

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

4 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -5-

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.

11. 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

5 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -6-

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

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

6 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -7-

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.

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.





                                7 of 15

 FAO-1844-2018 (O&M)                   -8-

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."

12. 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:-

"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.



                                    8 of 15

 FAO-1844-2018 (O&M)               -9-

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.

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

9 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -10-

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.

13. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was

46 years of age at the time of the accident and was stated to be a shopkeeper,

a property dealer as well as a truck operator. However, in the absence of any

documentary evidence to substantiate the same, the learned Tribunal rightly

resorted to assessing the income of the deceased based on the minimum

10 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -11-

wages applicable to skilled labour 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.8,612/-. Therefore, the monthly income of

the deceased may be reasonably rounded off and reassessed at Rs.9,000/-.

14. Now, coming to the deduction towards personal and living

expenditure. The learned Tribunal has rightly made 1/4th deduction towards

personal expenditure, however, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that

the father and major sister of the deceased, being legal representatives were

also entitled to be treated as dependents for the purpose of computation of

compensation.

15. Section 166 (c) of '1988 Act' expressly provides that where

death has resulted from the accident all or any of the legal representatives of

the deceased may prefer a claim for compensation. The relevant portion of

Section 166 of '1988 Act' reads as follows:-

"166. Application for compensation.--(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made--

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX"

16. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent

pronouncement titled as Sadhna Tomar and others Vs. Ashok Kushwaha

and others, 2025 SCC online SC 554, has categorically clarified the scope

11 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -12-

and ambit of the term 'Legal Representatives'. The Court held that legal

representatives are not confined merely to those who inherit the estate of the

deceased but extend to all persons who suffer on account of death of the

deceased, including those financially dependent upon him. The relevant

portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

"13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. Another question which arose for our consideration, as for the purpose of loss of dependency, the deduction of annual income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as there are five claimants. The Tribunal did not consider appellant Nos.4 and 5, namely, the father and the younger sister, respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating therein that the father was not dependent on the income of the deceased and since the father is alive, the younger sister is also not dependent on the income of the deceased. This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child.

14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712], this Court observed that:

"16. In our view, the term "legal representative"

should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the

12 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -13-

object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation."

17. In view of the judgment referred to above and the facts and

circumstances of the case, the father and major sister of the deceased clearly

falls within the definition of legal representatives and, therefore, must be

treated as dependents and are held entitled to the compensation.

18. Upon further perusal of the award, it is evident that no addition

was made towards future prospects to the income of the deceased. In view of

the settled position of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, an addition

of 25% towards future prospects ought to be made to the established income

of the deceased.

19. A further perusal of the award reveals that no compensation has

been awarded under head of loss of estate and loss of consortium is on the

lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the award requires

indulgence of this Court.

CONCLUSION

20. 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

13 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -14-

dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Faridkot is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to the

enhanced amount of compensation from the respondents, as per the

calculations made here-under:-

 Sr. No.                    Heads                             Compensation Awarded
      1    Monthly Income                             Rs.9,000/-
      2    Future prospects @ 25%                     Rs.2,250/- (9000 X 25%)
      3    Deduction     towards        personal Rs.2,813/- (11250 X 1/4)
           expenditure 1/4th

      4    Total Income                               Rs.8,437/- (11250-2813)



      6    Annual Dependency                          Rs.13,16,172/- (8437X12X13)
      7    Loss of Estate                             Rs.18,150/-
      8    Funeral Expenses                           Rs.25,000/-
      9    Loss of Consortium                         Rs.2,90,400/-

           Spousal : Rs. 48,400/-x 1
           Parental : Rs.48,400/- x 2
           Fillial : Rs.48,400/- x 3
      10   Total Compensation                         Rs.16,49,722/-
      11   Deduction
           Amount Awarded by the Tribunal             Rs.8,98,000 /-
      12   Enhanced amount                            Rs.7,51,722/- (16,49,722-8,98,000)

21. 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 amount so calculated

shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition, till the date of realization.

22. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount

along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse

14 of 15

FAO-1844-2018 (O&M) -15-

the same to the appellants-claimants in their bank accounts. The appellants-