[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwanti & Ors vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors on 18 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
RAJWANTI AND ORS. ......Appellants
Vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR AND ORS. ......Respondents
Reserved on: 17.04.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Uploaded on: 21.04.2026
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. Raghav Bali, Advocate for
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate and
Mr. Jayant Singh Chauhan, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
16.05.2016 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, Panipat (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of
Rs.8,39,424/- along with interest @9% per annum on account of death of
deceased Jasmer in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 16.12.2014.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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
3. 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. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be
allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants be
enhanced, as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance
Company vehemently argues on the line of award. Therefore, he prays that
present appeal be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
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-
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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 younger
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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;
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
(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
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this
aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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.
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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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, 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,
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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
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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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 shows that the age of the
deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. The deceased-Jasmer was
stated to be an agriculturist, earning Rs.50,000/- per month. To substantiate
the income, claimant has examined as PW-3 and PW-4 Mahavir, PW-5
Satyawan. PW-4 and PW-5 had deposed before learned Tribunal that they
had given their agricultural land to deceased on lease. However, the learned
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,290/- per month by
taking into account minimum wages at the relevant period of time which is
on lower side and deserves to be increased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
time and again emphasized on the fact that minimum wage notifications can
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
be a yardstick for the calculation of income but some guess work is to be
done in relation to the profession of the deceased in the interest of justice.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @
Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., 2021 INSC 593 has
reiterated the above mentioned principle. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced as under:-
"10. It is the specific case of the claimants that the
deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and
was earning Rs.15000/- per month. Possessing such
licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of
accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though
the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW-
1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15000/- per
month, same was not considered only on the ground that
salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the
monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum
wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In
absence of salary certificate the minimum wage
notification can be a yardstick but at the same time
cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the
deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record
some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at
the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of
the deceased should not be totally detached from reality.
Merely because claimants were unable to produce
documentary evidence to show the monthly income of
Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of
minimum wage while computing the income. There is no
reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the
deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning
around Rs.15000/- per month. In the case of Minu Rout &
Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., (2013)
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
10 SCC 695 this Court while dealing with the claim
relating to an accident which occurred on 08.11.2004 has
taken the salary of the driver of light motor vehicle at
Rs.6000/- per month. In this case the accident was on
27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was
in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was
driving such vehicle on the day of accident. Keeping in
mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and
demand for good drivers and by considering oral evidence
on record we may take the income of the deceased at
Rs.8000/- per month for the purpose of loss of dependency.
Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the
accident and as he was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement
is to be made towards loss of future prospects. At the
same time deduction of 1/3rd is to be made from the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
Accordingly the income of the deceased can be arrived at
Rs.7467/- per month. By applying the multiplier of '16' the
claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/-.
As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/- is already paid towards
the loss of dependency the appellant-parents are entitled
for differential compensation of Rs.3,33,964/-. Further in
view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018)
18 SCC 130 the appellants are also entitled for parental
consortium of Rs.40,000/-each. The finding of the Tribunal
that parents cannot be treated as dependents runs
contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. The judgment in the case
of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 relied on by the counsel for the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
respondent would not render any assistance in support of
his case having regard to facts of the case and the
evidence on record.
11. For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed and
appellants are entitled for further compensation amount
of Rs.3,33,964/- on account of loss of dependency and
consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus total
compensation payable to the appellants is fixed at
Rs.4,13,964/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing
of claim petition."
11. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to
reassess the income of the deceased to meet the ends of justice as
Rs.10,000/- per month.
12. Further perusal of the award reveals that major son of the
deceased were not awarded any compensation as he was not considered
dependant upon the income of the deceased. However, such approach of
learned Tribunal is untenable in the eyes of law. Reference at this stage can
be made to judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Tomar
& Others v. Ashok Kushwaha & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine 554, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressly held that the term legal representative
should not be confied to those who inherit the estate but extend to all
persons who suffer on account of death of the deceased.
13. The relevant paras of judgment passed in Sadhana Tomar's
case (supra) are 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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
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
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
MOHD AYUB death of a person in a motor vehicle accident
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
should have a remedy for realisation of
compensation."
14. In view of the above legal position, major son is also held
entitled to compensation as he also remain dependant upon the salary of the
deceased.
15. A further perusal of the award reveals that the amount awarded
under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium is on the lower side.
Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
16. 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 16.05.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Panipat 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.10,000/-
2 Future Prospects 25% Rs.2,500/- (25% of 10,000/-)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.4,166/- (12,500 X 1/3)
4. Total Income Rs.8,334/- (12,500-4,166)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.14,00,112/- (8,334 X 12 X 14)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
Parental : 40,000 X 2
Spousal : 40,000 X 1
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)
10 Total Compensation Rs.15,50,112/-
11 Deduction
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.8,39,424/-
12 Enhanced amount Rs.7,10,688/- (15,50,112-8,39,424)
17. 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.
18. Consequently, the respondent No.3-Insurance company 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 the same to the
appellants/claimants in their bank accounts. The appellants/claimants are
directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
18.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
