[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vidyawati And Others on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
......Appellant
Vs.
VIDYAWATI AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Reserved on : 19.03.2026
Pronounced on: 21.04.2026
Uploaded on: 22.04.2026
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. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rohan Sachdev, Advocate
Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate (through v.c.)
Ms. Sandhya Saini, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company
against the award dated 23.03.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed
under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on quantum of
compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.33,46,700/- along
with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, on account of death of Joginder in a Motor
Vehicular Accident, occurred on 03.02.2012 on the ground that
compensation awarded is on higher side.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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 appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by failing to
deduct the amount received by the dependants of the deceased under the
Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased
Government Employees Rules, 2006. He further contends that in view of the
settled legal position, the said amount is liable to be deducted while
computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and
consequently, the awarded compensation deserves to be reduced. Therefore,
he prays that present appeal be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6
contends that compensation awarded is on the lower side. She furthermore
contends that they have preferred separate appeal bearing No.FAO-4639-
2013, titled as "Vidyawati and others Vs. Ravinder Kumar and others"
seeking enhancement of compensation. She, therefore, prays that the present
appeal be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with his 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],
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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
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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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
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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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 reasonable
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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, 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
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
"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
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
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. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company regarding deduction of the amount received
under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased
Government Employees Rules, 2006 is concerned, this Court finds
considerable merit in the said submission. This Court, in FAO No. 1558 of
2012, titled as "Balwan Singh And Others Vs Jagbir And Others", decided
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
on 16.10.2025, has categorically held that where the dependants of a
deceased Government employee have already been extended compensatory
benefits by the employer under the aforesaid Rules, they are not entitled to
receive compensation to the same extent under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:
"11. Coming to the contention of the claimants
regarding the amount deducted from the total
compensation on the account of the amount received by
the dependents of the deceased under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased
Government Employees Rules, 2006, from the total
compensation awarded. This contention of the claimants
have no bearing in the eyes of law as it is settled principle
of law that deductions can be made in the compensation
to avoid double benefit to the claimants.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, 2016(9) SCC 627
held that the dependents of the deceased already
benefitted by the compensatory amount received from the
employer under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees
Rules, 2006, will not be entitled to the same amount under
1988 Act.
13. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
as under:
"15. Be that as it may, the term
compensation has not been defined in
the Act of 1988. By interpretative
process, it has been understood to
mean to recompense the claimants for
the possible loss suffered or likely to be
suffered due to sudden and untimely
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
death of their family member as a
result of motor accident. Two cardinal
principles run through the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in
the matter of determination of
compensation. Firstly, the measure of
compensation must be just and
adequate; and secondly, no double
benefit should be passed on to the
claimants in the matter of award of
compensation. Section 168 of the Act
of 1988 makes the first principle
explicit. Sub-section (1) of that
provision makes it clear that the
amount of compensation must be just.
The word "just" means - fair, adequate,
and reasonable. It has been derived
from the Latin word "justus",
connoting right and fair. In para 7 of
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur
& Ors., 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 140 :
(2003) 7 SCC 484, it has been held
that expression "just" denotes that the
amount must be equitable, fair,
reasonable and not arbitrary. In para
16 of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(3)
RCR (Civil) 77 : 2009(3) Recent Apex
Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2009) 6 SCC
121, this Court has observed that the
compensation "is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit".
That however may depend upon facts
MOHD AYUB and circumstances of each case, as to
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
what amount would be a just
compensation.
16. The principle discernable from the
exposition in Helen C. Rebello's case
(supra) is that if the amount "would be
due to the dependants of the deceased
even otherwise", the same shall not be
deductible from the compensation
amount payable under the Act of 1988.
At the same time, it must be borne in
mind that loss of income is a
significant head under which
compensation is claimed in terms of
the Act of 1988. The component of
quantum of "loss of income", inter alia,
can be "pay and wages" which
otherwise would have been earned by
the deceased employee if he had
survived the injury caused to him due
to motor accident. If the dependents of
the deceased employee, however, were
to be compensated by the employer in
that behalf, as is predicated by the
Rules of 2006 - to grant compassionate
assistance by way of ex-gratia
financial assistance on compassionate
grounds to the dependents of the
deceased Government employee who
dies in harness, it is unfathomable that
the dependents can still be permitted to
claim the same amount as a possible
or likely loss of income to be suffered
by them to maintain a claim for
MOHD AYUB compensation under the Act of 1988."
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
14. The same principle is reiterated in the latest
judgment passed by Apex Court in Krishna and others
Vs. Tek Chand and others, 2025(2) PLR 95.
Relevant paragraphs of the Krishna's case (supra)
are extracted hereinbelow:
"6. We find that the observations of
this Court in Sebastiani Lakra (supra)
distinguishing the case of Shashi
Sharma (supra) clearly applies to the
case in hand. It is observed that the
amount of Rs. 31,37,665/- (Rupees
Thirty One Lakhs, Thirty Seven
Thousand and Six Hundred and Sixty
Five only) was paid to the dependents
of the deceased-employee who are the
petitioners herein under the aforesaid
Rules since the said Rule was by way
of compassionate assistance owing to
the sudden death of the employee in
harness for any reason whatsoever
including as a result of a road traffic
accident. This is in order to
compensate the loss of the bread
earner of the family who dies in
harness.
In the case of a motor vehicle
accidents, when negligence is proved,
loss of dependency is compensated for
the very same reason. In our view,
there cannot be a duplication in
payments or a windfall owing to a
misfortune. In another words, on the
MOHD AYUB death of the person in harness, owing
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
to a road traffic accident the
dependents of a deceased cannot be
doubly benefited as opposed to those
who are dependents of a deceased who
dies owing to illness or any other
reason under the Rules formulated by
the Haryana Government."
15. In light of the aforesaid authoritative
pronouncements, the deduction made by the learned
Tribunal towards the compassionate assistance is liable to
be upheld. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to the
compensation amount only to the extent of enhancement
made by this Court."
11. In view of the settled legal position, it is beyond any pale of
doubt that the amount received by the dependants under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the dependants of Deceased Government
Employees Rules, 2006, is required to be deducted while determining
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
12. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
it is evident from the record that the widow of the deceased (Joginder), shall
continue to receive the same till the date on which the deceased would have
attained the age of superannuation. Consequently the amount received by
dependants of deceased under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 is liable to be
deducted.
13. A perusal of the award further reveals that learned Tribunal has
erred in assessing his monthly income as Rs.22,334/- (carry home salary)
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
instead of Rs.23,864/- (gross salary), which is contrary to the settled
proposition of law.
14. A perusal of award further reveals that amount awarded under
the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium are on the
lower side. Consequently, the compensation is reworked as under:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.23,864/-
2 Future prospects @ 30% Rs.7,159/- (30 % of 23,864)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.7,755/- (31,023 X 1/4)
4 Total Income Rs.23,268/- (31,023-7,755)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.36,29,808/- (23,268 X 12 X 13)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 /-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
Spousal : Rs.40,000 x 1
Filial : Rs.40,000 x 2
Parental: Rs.40,000 x 3
10 Total Compensation Rs.38,99,808/-
11 Deduction Rs.34,36,416/-
on account of compassionate
assistance to dependants
12 Amount to be granted Rs.4,63,392/- (38,99,808-33,46,700)
15. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case titled as Usha Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd; Law
Finder Doc ID: 1673911, held that the sum which has already been made
over to the claimants shall not be recovered from them.
16. The relevant portion of case titled as Usha Devi v. National
Insurance Company Ltd is reproduced as under:-
"8. However, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, where 50% of the awarded sum has
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)
already been made over to the claimants, we do not
deem it appropriate to direct refund of said sum.
9. Therefore, while affirming the view taken by the
High Court, we direct that 50% of the sum which has
been made over to the claimants shall not be
recovered from them and the Insurance Company will
be entitled only to the refund of balance 50% sum
which stands deposited with the Registry of the
Tribunal along with any interest accrued thereon.
10. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms."
17. As a sequel to above discussion, and relying on the judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount of compensation
already disbursed to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 6 is not liable to be
recovered.
18. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount so disbursed shall not
be recovered from the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Devi & Ors. Vs. The New
India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. [2020 (1) CivilLJ 854].
19. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
23.03.2013 is modified to the above extent.
20. The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited by the appellant
at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to it.
21. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
21.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Sahil/Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
authenticity of this order/judgment.
