[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Subdin & Anr vs M/S Varuna Road And Ors. on 7 April, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-906-2015 (O&M)

SUBDIN AND ANR. ......Appellants

Vs.

M/S VARUNA ROAD & ORS. ......Respondents

Reserved on: 06.04.2026
Pronounced on : 07.04.2026
Uploaded on:- 08.04.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate
for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.

None for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate
and Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.3-United India Insurance Co.

Mr. Aalok Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.4.

None for respondent No.5.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.6 -Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.ltd
****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

18.12.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat 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 to the

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -2-

tune of Rs.2,85,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, on account of death

of Rohit @ Kallu in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 16.06.2013.

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.

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

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 award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as

assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they pray 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -3-

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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -4-

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.

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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -5-

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

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -6-

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.

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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -7-

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:-

"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,

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -8-

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.

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -9-

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.

9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that deceased Rohit @

Kallu was 15 years old at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal have erred in

determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15000/- per annum as the

same is on lower side. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to recalculate the same.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -10-

10. It is by now a well-settled and consistently reiterated principle of law

that the death or permanent disability of a minor child in a motor vehicle accident

cannot be equated with that of a non-earning individual for the purposes of

computing compensation. The reason is obvious: a child, by virtue of tender age,

is not engaged in gainful employment and, therefore, any rigid categorization as a

"non-earner" would not only be artificial but would also defeat the very object of

just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

11. In such cases, the proper course for determination of compensation

under the head of "loss of income" is to adopt, at the very least, the minimum

wages notified for a skilled worker in the State concerned at the relevant time. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in categorical terms, laid down this principle in Kajal

v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 413] and Baby Sakshi Greola v.

Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692], wherein it was

held that a potential of minor and future prospects cannot be curtailed by treating

him/her as a non-earner, and the yardstick of minimum wages of a skilled worker

is the just and reasonable benchmark.

12. The same view was recently reiterated in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs.

Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr, 2025 INSC 1070, the relevant portion of the

same is reproduced as under:-

"9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor

appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and

order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that

the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly

income of the appellant while determining the quantum of

compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -11-

reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death

or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be

placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the

purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the

child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the

accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation

under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting,

at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled

workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective

State where the cause of action arises. The said observation

was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and

Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor

Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 3692.

10. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an 8-

year-old child at the time of the accident. In view of the above

exposition of law, we must advert to the prevailing minimum

wages, which for the skilled ones, as in the year of accident,

i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be Rs.227.85p. per day, therefore,

in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to determine

the income of the appellant as Rs.6,835.5p. per month,

rounding off to Rs.6,836/- per month."

13. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the present case, the monthly notional

income of the deceased Rohit @ Kallu, is accordingly assessed at Rs.5,400/- per

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -12-

month, being the minimum wages of a skilled worker as notified for the relevant

period in the State of Haryana.

14. It is revealed that the learned Tribunal has erred applying the

multiplier of 15 instead of 18. The said approach is contrary to the settled position

of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai's case

(supra).

15. Therefore, considering the age of the minor and judgment referred to

above the correct multiplier should be 18.

16. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has

erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects to the income of the

deceased. Therefore, as per the settled law on compensation 40% is to be added as

future prospects.

17. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has

erred in not deducting anything for personal expenditure. Considering the facts

that the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 should be deducted towards personal

expenditure, as per the settled law.

18. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted

by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of consortium & funeral expenses.

Furthermore, no amount is awarded for the loss of estate. Therefore, the award

requires indulgence of this Court.

RELIEF

19. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated

18.12.2014 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellants-claimants

are held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-

authenticity of this order/judgment.

                FAO-906-2015 (O&M)                                   -13-



                            Sr.                          Heads                      Compensation Awarded
                            No.
                                  1     Monthly Income                         Rs.5,400/-
                                  2     Future prospects @ 40%                 Rs.2,160/- (40% of 5400)
                                  3     Deduction     towards         personal Rs.3780/- (7,560 X 1/2)

                                  4     Total Income                           Rs.3,780/-(7,560-3780)


                                  6     Annual Dependency                      Rs.8,16,480/- (3,780X12X18)
                                  7     Loss of Estate                         Rs.15,000/-
                                  8     Funeral Expenses                       Rs.15,000/-
                                  9     Loss of Consortium                     Rs.80,000/-
                                        Filial : 2 x Rs. 40,000/-
                                10      Total Compensation                     Rs.9,26,480/-
                                 11     Deduction                              Rs.2,85,000/-
                                        Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
                                12      Enhanced amount                        Rs.6,41,480/- (9,26,480-2,85,000)

20. 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 Nadu 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.

21. The respondents No.3 and 6 (Insurance Companies) are directed to

deposit the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% 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 the same to the appellants-

claimants in their bank account as per ratio settled in award dated 18.12.2014. The

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-906-2015 (O&M) -14-

appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the

Tribunal.

22. Respondent No.6-Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse

the current scheduled fee to Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, within a period of 20 days

from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, in view of the order dated

18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this Court.

23. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

07.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No