[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mange Ram Thr Lrs And Ors vs Buta Khan And Ors on 13 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-6011-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 13.01.2026
MANGE RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS AND ORS .... Appellants
VERSUS
BUTA KHAN AND ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide
award dated 09.12.2014.
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as
recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being
adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income ₹5,000
2. Annual income [₹5,000 x 12] = ₹60,000
3. Deduction @50% [₹60,000 -₹30,000] = ₹30,000
4. Multiplier of '11' [₹30,000 x 11] = ₹3,30,000
5. Last rites ₹25,000
Total Compensation ₹3,55,000
Interest @ 9% per annum
FAO-6011-2015 (O&M) -2-
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹5,000 per month
as the minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the
accident were ₹5,341 per month. Learned counsel would further contend that
though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction made and the
multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, no addition has been made
towards future prospects which ought to have been 10% and that no amount
has been awarded under the head loss of consortium to claimant-appellant
No.1 being the son. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the
amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral
expenses are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the
claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130]
and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance
Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any
enhancement.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
FAO-6011-2015 (O&M) -3-
deceased as ₹5,000 per month, however, the minimum wages of an unskilled
worker prevailing at the time of the accident were ₹5,341 per month and as such
the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹5,341 per month. Since there is no
challenge to the deduction made and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal,
the same are maintained. Further, no addition has been made towards future
prospects. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), addition @ 10% is made towards future prospects.
8. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is on the
lower side and no amount has been awarded under the head 'loss of
consortium'. Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company
Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be
entitled to ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and
₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The claimant-
appellant No.1, being the son of the deceased, would also be entitled to
₹48,000 (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of consortium.
9. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income ₹5,341
2. Annual income [₹5,341 x 12] = ₹64,092
3. Deduction @50% [₹64,092 - ₹32,046] = ₹32,046
4. Future prospects @ 10% [₹32,046+ ₹3,204] = ₹35,250
5. Multiplier '11' [₹35,250 x 11] = ₹3,87,750
6. Loss of estate ₹18,000
7. Funeral expenses ₹18,000
8. Loss of Consortium :
(i) Parental (child) ₹48,000
9. Total Compensation ₹4,71,750
FAO-6011-2015 (O&M) -4-
10. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded
by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The amount
shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed by the
Tribunal.
11. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 (SC) 1713], after
calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by respondent
No.3-Insurance Company in the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants
within a period of six weeks from today. The share of the minor claimant-
appellant(s) shall be kept in an FDR with a nationalized bank fetching
maximum rate of interest. The particulars of the bank accounts along with the
requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-
appellants to respondent No.3-Insurance company within a period of two
weeks from today and needful shall be done by respondent No.3-Insurance
Company after verification thereof within a period of four weeks thereafter
along with up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank
to the Tribunal concerned.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
13.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
