[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suman Lata And Ors vs Satyawan And Ors on 30 April, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

              FAO-4418-2017 (O&M)                                     -1-

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                FAO-4418-2017 (O&M)

              SUMAN LATA AND ORS.                                           ......Appellants
                                                         Vs.

              SATYAWANAND ORS                                               ......Respondents
                                                                Reserved on: 29.04.2026
                                                                Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
                                                                Uploaded on : 04.05.2026

              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:                 Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate
                                       for Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate
                                       for the appellants.

                      Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate
                      for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
                                              ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

18.02.2017 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, Rewari (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of

compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.14,49,000/- along

with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, on account of death of Devinder Singh in a

Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 08.05.2016.

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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -2-

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 respondent No.3-Insurance

Company, 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 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-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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -3-

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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -4-

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.

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -5-

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 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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -6-

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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -7-

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, 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.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -8-

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -9-

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 the deceased was

stated to be about 29 years of age at the time of the accident and was stated to

be working as agriculturist and was stated to be earning ₹15,000/- per month.

However, no documentary or cogent evidence was brought on record to

substantiate the said income.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -10-

10. In the absence of proof regarding the earnings of the deceased,

the learned Tribunal resorted to the minimum wage notifications applicable at

the relevant time for an unskilled worker for assessing the income of the

deceased and assessed the same as Rs.8,000/- The said approach, however,

suffers from material infirmity.

11. It is a settled position of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav & Ors., reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, that in cases where there is no

documentary evidence of income, the minimum wages notification may be

adopted as a guiding factor, but the same cannot be treated as an inflexible or

absolute standard. The Court has further held that a reasonable amount of

guesswork, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, is permissible

and indeed necessary while assessing the income of the deceased.

12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, and keeping in

mind the nature of employment, age of the deceased, and the overall facts and

circumstances of the present case, it would be just, fair, and reasonable to

assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of

determining compensation.

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

has rightly deducted 1/4 for personal expenditure and rightly applied the

multiplier of 17.

14. A further perusal of the award reveals that the amount granted for

loss of consortium is on the lower side and no amount has been awarded

under the head of loss of future prospects and loss of estate. Therefore, the

award requires indulgence of this Court.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

               FAO-4418-2017 (O&M)                                        -11-

              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 18.02.2017 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are

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

                           Sr. No.                       Heads                   Compensation Awarded
                                 1      Monthly Income                    Rs.10,000/-
                                 2      Future prospects @ 40%            Rs.4,000/- (40% of 10000)
                                 3      Deduction     towards    personal Rs.3,500/- (14,000 X 1/4)


                                 4      Total Income                      Rs.10,500/- (14000-3500)


                                 6      Annual Dependency                 Rs.21,42,000/- (10500 X 12 X 17)
                                 7      Loss of Estate                    Rs.15,000/-
                                 8      Funeral Expenses                  Rs.15,000/-
                                 9      Loss of Consortium                Rs.2,00,000/-
                                        Parental : 2 x 40,000
                                        Spousal : 1 x 40,000
                                        Filial   : 2 x 40,000
                                10      Total Compensation                Rs.23,72,000/-
                                11      Deduction                         Rs.14,49,000 /-
                                        Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
                                12      Enhanced amount                   Rs.9,23,000/-(23,72,000-14,49,000)

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

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-4418-2017 (O&M) -12-

judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellants-