[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhwinder And Ors vs Vipin Kumar And Ors on 23 April, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

              FAO-5243-2018 (O&M)                             -1-

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                                              FAO-5243-2018 (O&M)

              SUKHWINDER KAUR AND ORS.
                                                                                     ......Appellants
                                                        Vs.

              VIPIN KUMAR AND ORS.
                                                                                   ......Respondents

                                                              Reserved on: 24.03.2026
                                                              Pronounced on: 23.04.2026
                                                              Uploaded on : 27.04.2026

              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. D.P.S. Bajwa, Advocate
                                       for the appellants.

                                       Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate
                                       for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.1.

                                       Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.2.

                                       Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate
                                       Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.3.

                                                              ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

02.12.2013 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, Jind (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of

compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.7,74,000/- on account

of death of Joginder in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 08.12.2012.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -2-

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

amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

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

vehemently argues that 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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -3-

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -4-

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 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;

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -5-

(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

determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -6-

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 between

the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.

Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -7-

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

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -8-

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,

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -9-

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

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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -10-

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 award reveals that the deceased was stated to be

46 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as an agriculturist

and was stated to be earning ₹50,000/- per month as he was owner of 14.5

acres of agricultural land. However, there is no material on record to

substantiate the said income.

10. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the learned Tribunal

rightly come to a conclusion that the agricultural land would be inherited by

claimant, therefore, the compensation for supervisory skills of land can be

awarded.

11. A perusal of award further reveals that the amount of supervisory

skills to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side and liable to be

suitably enhanced to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month in the interest of

justice.

12. A perusal of award further reveals that major sons of the

deceased were not considered dependant upon the in come of the deceased,

which is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

Sadhana Tomar & Others v. Ashok Kushwaha & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine

554, wherein, it has been held as under:-

"13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -11-

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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5243-2018 (O&M) -12-

a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation."

13. In view of the above legal position, the major son are also held

entitled to the compensation.

14. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal

has not granting any compensation under the head of future prospects and

erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenditure.

Furthermore, no amount was awarded under the head of loss of estate and

meager amount was awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore,

the award requires indulgence of this Court.

CONCLUSION

15. 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 02.12.2013 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are

entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:-

                           Sr.                        Heads                   Compensation Awarded
                           No.
                                 1      Monthly Income                   Rs.10,000/-
                                 2      Future prospects @ 25%           Rs.2,500/- (25% of 10000)
                                 3      Deduction towards       personal Rs.3,125/- (12,500 X 1/4)

                                 4      Total Income                     Rs.9,375/- (12500-3125)

                                 6      Annual Dependency                Rs.14,62,500/- (9,375 X 12 X 13)
                                 7      Loss of Estate                   Rs.15,000/-
                                 8      Funeral Expenses                 Rs.15,000/-
                                 9      Loss of Consortium               Rs.1,60,000/-
                                        Parental: 2 x 40,000
                                        Spousal: 1 x 40,000
                                        Filial : 1 x 40,000



authenticity of this order/judgment.
               FAO-5243-2018 (O&M)                                -13-

                                10      Total Compensation               Rs.16,52,500/-
                                11      Deduction                        Rs.7,74,000/-
                                        Amount Awarded by the
                                        Tribunal
                                12      Enhanced amount                  Rs.8,78,500 /-(16,52,500-7,74,000)

16. 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 appellants-claimants are

granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date

of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

17. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is 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 accounts. The appellants-claimants are directed to

furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.