[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhanu And Anr vs Vakeel @ Sattu And Ors on 20 January, 2026

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                       257
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                                                                     FAO-2288-2016 (O&M)
                                                                     Date of Decision : 20.01.2026

                       BHANU AND ANR                                                   .... Appellants

                                                          VERSUS

                       VAKEEL @ SATTU AND ORS                                        .... Respondents

                       CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                       Present :    Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

                                    Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                       ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-8132-CII-2016

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 25 days in

filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-2288-2016

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award

dated 14.10.2015.

4. 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.

FAO-2288-2016 (O&M) -2-

5. The deceased, in the present case, was a minor child, namely,

Manjeet, aged 6 years, who died in an accident which took place on

28.09.2014. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

compensation :

                          Sr. No.                Heads                  Compensation Awarded
                               1.   Consolidated amount           ₹4,50,000
                               2.   Last rites                    ₹20,000
                               3.   Loss of love and affection    ₹50,000
                                    Total Compensation            ₹5,20,000
                                    Interest                      @ 7.5% per annum

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

the Tribunal has erred in awarding a consolidated amount on account of death

of Manjeet who was 6 years old at the time of the accident. Learned counsel

for the claimant-appellants while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad

Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238] and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand &

Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27] contends that though cases of injury,

however, in both the cases a minor was involved and the income was assessed

as that of a skilled worker and a multiplier of 18 was also applied. It is further

the contention that no addition has been made towards future prospects.

Learned counsel would still further contend that the amounts awarded under

the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are not in

accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support

of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma &

Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121],

FAO-2288-2016 (O&M) -3-

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].

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance

Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount had already been

awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any

enhancement. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that in case a

multiplier method is to be applied then deduction would have to be made.

8. Heard.

9. In the present case the deceased was 6 years of age and the

Tribunal had granted a consolidated amount. The argument of the learned

counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased ought to

have been assessed as that of a skilled worker deserves to be accepted. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), while

relying upon the case of Kajal (supra), assessed the notional income of a 7-

year-old child, who had received injuries, on the basis of minimum wages

payable to a skilled worker. Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently

in the case of Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [2025 (1) TAC

730], yet again relying on Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), awarded the

compensation in the case of a 6-year-old child, who had died in an accident

which occurred on 07.03.2014, as per the minimum wages applicable for a

skilled worker in the year 2014. Further still, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

FAO-2288-2016 (O&M) -4-

the cases of Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General

Insurance Company Limited & Anr. [2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 760] and

Minor Roopa Vs. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance

Company Limited [2024 (12) SCC 490], wherein for the death of a minor

child aged 5 and 6 years, respectively, income of the deceased was calculated

on the basis of minimum wages for a skilled workman. The minimum wages

of a skilled worker at the time of the accident i.e. 28.09.2014 were ₹6,029 per

month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹6,029 (rounded off

to ₹6,050) per month. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of '18' would be applicable

keeping in view the age of the deceased being 6 years at the time of the

accident. No addition has been awarded towards future prospects. As per the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra), 40% addition is made towards future prospects. No deduction was

made by the Tribunal, which ought to have been 1/2.

10. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and

under the head loss of consortium are not in consonance with the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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-appellants, being the parents of the deceased, would

FAO-2288-2016 (O&M) -5-

also be entitled to ₹48,000 each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) under the head filial

consortium.

11. Accordingly, the reworked compensation to which the claimant-

appellants are entitled is as under :

                          Sr. No.              Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                               1.   Monthly income                ₹6,050
                               2.   Annual income                 [₹6,050 x 12] = ₹72,600
                               3.   Deduction 1/2                 [₹72,600 - ₹36,300] = ₹36,300
                               4.   Future prospects @ 40%        [₹36,300 + ₹14,520] = ₹50,820
                               5.   Multiplier of '18'            [₹50,820 x 18] = ₹9,14,760
                               6.   Funeral expenses              ₹18,000
                               7.   Loss of estate                ₹18,000
                               8.   Loss of consortium
                                      (i)    Filial               [₹48,000 x 2] = ₹96,000
                                    Total Compensation            ₹10,46,760

12. 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.

13. 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 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