[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Shilpa Jain & Ors on 15 January, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M)
BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
......Appellant
vs.
SHILPA JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS
......Respondents
Reserved on:- 19.12.2025
Pronounced on:- 15.01.2026
Uploaded on:- 16.01.2026
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. Punit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. M.K. Mittal, Advocate
for respondent No.1 to 4.
Ms. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate
for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
22.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for
short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant insurance company was held
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of
Rs.64,87,743/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on the ground of
quantum of compensation to be on higher side.
1 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (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. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
higher side.
4. He further contends that the learned tribunal has erred in
considering the income tax returns of 2014-2015 for the calculation of income
of the deceased as the same was filed after the death of Aadish Jain, therefore,
this ITR should not have been considered and average should be taken from
the previous ITRs.
5. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in
calculating the income of the deceased, as it has considered the gross income
without deducting income tax, contrary to the settled position of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.
6. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in adding
50% to the income of the deceased as future prospects instead of 40%.
7. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in
considering parents of the deceased as dependent upon him. Accordingly, he
prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be
reduced as per latest law.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-claimants contends
that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the
same is liable to be enhanced.
2 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -3-
9. He further points out that the claimants have already filed a
separate appeal, being FAO-3468-2017, titled as "Shilpa Jain (since deceased)
through her LRs Vs. Inderjeet Jain and others", challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking its enhancement.
Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the present appeal.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
11. 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.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle.
3 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -4-
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.
* * * * * *
4 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -5-
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.
12. 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.
5 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -6-
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
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,
6 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -7-
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.
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
7 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -8-
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."
13. 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
8 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -9-
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
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
9 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -10-
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.
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.
10 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -11-
14. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was 28 years old
at the time of the accident, he was stated to be running two readymade
garment showrooms, earning four lakhs per annum. According to the
contention of the appellant-insurance company, the learner Tribunal has erred
in calculation of the income of the deceased by placing reliance on the income
tax returns of 2014-15 because the same was filed after the death of Adish
Jain. However, this contention does not hold any merit in the eyes of law. It is
trite that the return placed on record shall not be rejected only on the ground
that it was submitted after the date of the accident. This view was recently
reiterated in the judgment of Nidhi Bhargava versus national insurance
Company Limited 2025 SCC online SC 872 the relevant paragraph of the
same is reproduced as under:
"12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e.,
12.08.2008, the Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009
had not been filed, cannot disadvantage the appellants, for
the reason that the period for which the Return is to be
submitted covers the period starting 1st of April, 2007 and
ending 31st March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the
Return would be only for the period 01.04.2007 to
31.03.2008, and date of submission would be
post-31.03.2008. No income earned beyond 31.03.2008
would reflect in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment
Year 2008-2009. To reject the Return on the sole ground of
its submission after the date of accident alone, in our
considered view, cannot be legally sustained.
13. The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible
document on which the income assessment of the deceased
could be made. This Court in Malarvizhi v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 affirmed that the
determination of income must proceed on the basis of
11 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -12-
Income Tax Return(s), when available, being a statutory
document. In S Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, 2025 SCC Online SC 182, we opined:
'11. ...It is no longer res integra that Income Tax
Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of
a deceased, reference whereof can be made to Amrit
Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012)
11 SCC 738 [Para 17]; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC
764 [Para 7], and K Ramya (supra) [Para 14 of
2022 SCC Online SC 1338].'
(emphasis supplied)
14. In Malarvizhi (supra), the Madras High Court relied
upon the Returns 'for Assessment Year 1997-1998 and not
1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which reflected a reduction in
the annual income of the deceased' therein.
15. The High Court interfered and reduced the
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the
ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had
to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that
the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the
Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the
period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year
concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the
Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for
different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal
concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or
choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good
reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt
one of the afore-noted two courses of action, bearing in
nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which
is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the
High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in
such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim
12 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -13-
of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been
drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very
tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As
pointed out in Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 563:
'13. ... In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2022 SCC Online SC 1338, after taking note of,
inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the
'... Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and
welfare legislation that seeks to provide
compensation as per the contemporaneous position
of an individual which is essentially forward-
looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly
concerned with making up for the past and
reinstating a claimant to his original position, the
compensation under the Act is concerned with
providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in
the future. ...' ...'(2)
[(2) Also reported as [2025] 4 SCR 63 | 2025 INSC
357]
(underlined in original)
16. On the strength of the reasons afore-indicated, the
Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the original
amount [Rs. 31,41,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Forty-
One Thousand)] awarded by the Tribunal in MACT
No.357515/2016 as compensation is restored. Payment be
made to the Appellants by the Respondent No.1 at the rate
of 9% interest per annum after adjusting amount(s), if any,
that may have been paid during the interregnum. The
exercise be completed within two months from today,
failing which an additional 9% interest per annum shall be
payable for the period of delay, both on the principal
amount as well as on the interest component, till the date
13 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -14-
of actual payment. No order as to costs, in the
circumstances."
15. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly relied upon the ITR of 2014-
2015, for the calculation of income of the deceased.
16. Adverting to the next contention of the appellant-insurance
company, the submission that income tax is required to be deducted from the
gross income of the deceased, deserves acceptance in the eyes of law. It is
well settled that while determining compensation, the gross income after
deduction of income tax alone is to be taken into consideration. In Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court categorically held that the income of the deceased must be
assessed after deducting the payable income tax. This principle was further
reiterated in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein it was
held that where the income of the deceased falls within the taxable bracket,
deduction of income tax is mandatory.
17. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
"21. The third issue is "whether the income tax is liable to
be deducted for determination of compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act" In the case of Sarla Verma & Anr.
(Supra), this Court held "generally the actual income of
the deceased less income tax should be the starting point
for calculating the compensation." This Court further
observed that "where the annual income is in taxable
range, the word "actual salary" should be read as "actual
salary less tax". Therefore, it is clear that if the annual
income comes within the taxable range income tax is
required to be deducted for determination of the actual
salary. But while deducting income-tax from salary, it is
necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim.
If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head
14 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -15-
"salaries" one should keep in mind that under Section 192
(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for
paying any income chargeable under the head "salaries"
shall at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on
estimated income of the employee from "salaries" for that
financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax
deducted at source ('TDS' for short). When the employer
fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as
it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-
deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1A) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only
from "salary", the presumption would be that the employer
under Section 192 (1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 has
deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In
case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is
required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to
suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the
salary of the employee.
However, there can be cases where the victim is not
a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than
salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range,
in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is
made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that
the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax
has to be deducted from the income."
18. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is required to be
computed after deduction of the income tax and is thus assessed at
₹3,27,983/- (3,32,692 - 4,709) per annum. Therefore, monthly income of the
deceased is reassessed as Rs.27,332/-.
19. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has erred in adding 50% as future prospect to the income of the deceased.
15 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -16-
Since the deceased was self-employed, therefore, as per the settled law, 40%
is to be added as future prospects.
20. Further, perusal of the award reveals that the learned tribunal has
deducted 1/4 towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, considering
his wife, two children and his parents as dependent of him at the time of his
death. As per the contention of the respondent, the parents of the deceased
were not dependent upon him. Therefore 1/3rd has to be deducted as personal
expenditure. This contention is contrary to the settled position of law. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently recognised that the loss of a family
member in a motor accident is an unfathomable tragedy not only for the
parents. The anguish, grief and emotional trauma suffered by parents are
profound and enduring, often defying adequate articulation. No amount of
compensation can truly redress the emotional void caused by such a loss.
Since there is no record to show that the parents of the deceased were not
dependent upon him at the time of his death, the learned tribunal has rightly
deducted, 1/4th as personal expenditure.
21. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has granted meager amount under the head of loss of consortium, therefore,
the same is liable to be enhanced.
22. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The award
dated 22.12.2016 is modified accordingly. The respondents-claimants are
entitled to modified compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.27,332/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.10,933/-/- (40% of 27332)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.9,566/- (38265 X 1/4th)
expenditure 1/4th
16 of 17
FAO-3184-2017 (O&M) -17-
4 Total Income Rs.28,699/- (38265-9566)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.58,54,596/- (28699 X 12 X 17)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,42,000/-
Parental : 2 x 48,400
Spousal : 1 x 48,400
Filial : 2 x 48,400
10 Total Compensation Rs.61,39,746/-
11 Amount Awarded by the Rs.64,87,743/-
Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.3,47,997/- (64,87,743-61,39,746)
23. 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 respondents-claimants
are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the modified amount from the
date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
24. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
modified 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 modified amount of compensation along with interest
to the respondents-claimants.
25. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
15.01.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
17 of 17
