[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Kaur And Another vs Nirmal Singh And Others on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
-1-
FAO-3437-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3437-2025
Balwant Kaur and anr. ......Appellants
Vs.
Nirmal Singh and others ......Respondents
Date of Reserve: 06.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement:19.02.2026
Uploaded on:- 20.02.2026
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. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
20.02.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala 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 tune of Rs.08,20,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on account of
death of Major Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 30.12.2019.
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.
1 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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 prays
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
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
2 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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 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.
* * * * * *
3 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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.
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
4 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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
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
5 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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.
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.
6 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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.
7 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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 to the parents is a compensation for loss
8 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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- Major Singh
was a minor child aged merely 14 years at the time of the accident. The learned
Tribunal, however, fell in error in assessing his notional income at a meager sum
of Rs.50,000/- per annum.
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
9 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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
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
10 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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 minor, Major Singh, is accordingly assessed at
Rs.13,000/- per month, being the minimum wages of a skilled worker as notified
for the relevant period in the State of Punjab.
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 the recent judgment of Baby
Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another, Law Finder Doc Id #
2672826 applied a multiplier of 18 in the case of a child aged seven years, taking
into consideration the age of the minor. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced as under:-
11 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
"48. Consistent with the approach adopted by this Court in the
cases of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra), we deem it
appropriate to enhance the compensation to be awarded under
this head. The minimum wages paid to a skilled worker on a
full-time basis in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident
was Rs. 4,358/-.
Keeping the appellant's age in mind, the multiplier in the
present case should be 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be
awarded to the appellant under this head shall be enhanced to
Rs. 4,358 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,41,328/- and rounded it off to
Rs.9,42,000/-."
15. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present
case. 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 adding 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 is to be deducted towards personal
expenditure.
12 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
18. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted
by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss
of consortium. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
RELIEF
19. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
20.02.2025 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant-claimant is
held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.13000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.5200/- (40% of 13000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.9100/- (18200 X 1/2)
4. Total Income Rs.9100/-(18200-9100)
5 Annual Dependency Rs.19,65,600/- (9100X12X18)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800/-
Filial : Rs. 48,400/-x2
Total Compensation Rs.20,98,700/-
Deduction Rs.8,20,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.12,78,700/- (2098700-820000)
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 Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
13 of 14
FAO-3437-2025
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. 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 enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the
appellant-claimant.
22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
19.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Gaurav Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
