[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak And Ors vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 23 January, 2026
1
24 (O&M)
FAO No.3041 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3041
No.3041 of 2024 (O&M)
DEEPAK AND ORS. ...Appellants
llants
Vs
INFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
...Respondents
...Respondents
1 The date when the judgment was reserved 12.
12.01.202
01.2026
2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.01.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.01.2026
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.
MANUJA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ A
Present: Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.1/Insurance
No. /Insurance Company.
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
16.03.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for
brevity, "the Tribunal"), whereby an amount of Rs.18,24,200/
Rs.18,24,200/- was awarded as
compensation
ation to appellant/claimant No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization on account of death
of Shakuntala in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 29.09.2019.
FACTS
[2]. A claim petition came
came to be filed at the instance of
appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of
compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-
Rs. (Rupees forty lakhs only), on account
1 of 7
24 (O&M)
of death of Shakuntala in a motor vehicular accident which took place on
29.09.2019 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver.
[3]. After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by
both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver, holding
respondent No.3/Insurance Company liable and awarded compensation in the
following manner:-
manner:
S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)
1. Monthly Income Rs. 17,920/-
2. Annual Income Rs. 2,15,040/-
3. Future Prospects (25%) Rs. 53,760/-
4. Total Income (Rs. 2,15,040 + Rs. 53,760) Rs. 2,68,800/-
4. Less 1/2nd on account of personal expenses Rs. 1,34,400/-
(Rs. 2,68,800-
2,68,800 Rs. 1,34,400)
5. Annual Dependency Rs. 1,34,400/-
6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of Rs. 17,47,200/-
17,47,200/-
13 as per age of 48 years (1,34,400 x 13)
7. Loss of estate Rs. 16,500 /-
/-
8. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
16,500/-
9. Loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/-
44,000/-
10. Total Compensation Rs. 18,24,200/-
18,24,200/-
[4]. Being aggrieved of the award dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned
Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for
enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the
manner of the accident and the issue regarding neglige
negligence
nce of the driver recorded in
favour of the appellant/claimant by the learned Tribunal, being not under
challenge, are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
2 of 7
24 (O&M)
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.
[5]. Learned counsel
counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned award
suffers from illegality for mis-appreciation
mis appreciation of evidence. It was submitted that the
learned Tribunal, erred in holding that only claimant No. 2 was dependent upon the
deceased while ignoring the unrebutted evidence on record which clearly
established that claimant No. 1 to 4 were dependent upon the income of deceased
Shakuntala Devi at the time of her death. Consequently, the deduction of 50%
towards personal expenses was wholly unjustified and co
contrary
ntrary to the settled law.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted under
conventional heads was not in consonance with the settled law, therefore, he
prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decision on the subject
subject.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
No.1
No.1/INSURANCE COMPANY
[6]. Per contra, learned counsel
counsel representing respondent No.
No.3/Insurance
3/Insurance
Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the
offending vehicle, however
however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the
compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.
DISCUSSION
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
paper
book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the
appellants.
QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED
[8]. In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased-
deceased
Shakuntala Devi, at the time of accident was 48 years of age and was receiving
family
mily pension to the tune of Rs.17,920/- per month. The learned Tribunal after
3 of 7
24 (O&M)
examining the pension slips placed on record as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, rightly accepted
the said amount as the monthly income of the deceased and, accordingly, aassessed
ssessed
her annual income @ Rs.2,15,040/-.
Rs. . No evidence to the contrary was led by the
respondents to discredit the authenticity of the said documents or to suggest that
the income so assessed was incorrect. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this
Court, the determination of the monthly as well
well as annual income of the deceased
by the learned Tribunal is based on cogent documentary evidence and does not
suffer from any infirmity or illegality, warranting interference by this Court.
[9]. The next issue which arises for consideration in the pres
present
ent appeal is
whether the learned Tribunal was justified in treating claimant No.2 as the sole
dependent and, consequently deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the
deceased.
[9.1]. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that claimants
claima
No.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Shakuntala Devi. The testimony led by
the claimants regarding their dependency upon the deceased has remained
unrebutted and unchallenged. The learned Tribunal, without assigning any cogent
reason, has arbitrarily
arbi ily held that only claimant No.
No.2
2 was dependent upon the
deceased. Such a finding is not borne out from the evidence and cannot be
sustained.
[9.2]. The learned Tribunal has applied a deduction of 50%, though the
claimants in the present case are 4 i.e. 1 major son, 2 major daughters and 1
law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Seema Rani & Ors. v.
mother-in-law.
Limited
The Oriental Insurance Company Limit ed & Ors." reported as [2025 (2) RCR
(Civil) 48] has held that major married and earning children of the deceased, being
legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, irrespective of their
4 of 7
24 (O&M)
dependency status on the deceased. The relevant pa
para
ra from the judgment is
reproduced hereunder:-
hereunder:
"9. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellants. We are unable to
agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents of the
deceased. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender
& Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 356 had expounded that major married and earning
sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for
compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective
of whether the representatives are
are fully dependent on the deceased or not.
The Court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were
earning merely Rs. 1,50,000/-
1,50,000/ per annum, they were largely dependent on
the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her.
10. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of
Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as
Annexure P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was
involved in temporary 1 (2020) 11 SCC 356 employment opport
opportunities
unities
only. Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances,
it cannot be said that they were self
self-sufficient
sufficient or independent of the
deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (Supra), there is no
reason to exclude a married
married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in
view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants."
[9.3]. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Seema Rani (supra), the major sons and married daughters would also be
held to be dependents and thus the number of claimants was 4 and therefore, a
deduction of 1/4th was to be applicable in the present case.
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS
[10]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
and others" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and "United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
5 of 7
24 (O&M)
vs. Satinder Kaur", reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under
conventional heads are also required to be assessed accordingly.
Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs.1
Rs.18,000/- as compensation
tion under
funeral head and Rs.18,000/-
Rs. towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is assessed
to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/-
Rs. (Rs. 48,000 x 4) as the appellants, being children and
mother-in-law
law of deceased are also entitled for parental and filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
[11]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the ap
appellants/claimant
/claimants
are held entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:
manner:-
S.No. Nature Amount (in
Rs.)
1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 2,15,040/-
2,15,040/
th
2. Deduction (1/4 ) Rs. 53,760/--
3. Net Income (Rs. 2,15,040 - Rs. 53,760) Rs. 1,61,280/-
1,61,280/
4. Future Prospects (25%) Rs. 40,320/--
5. Total Income (1,61,280 + 40,320) Rs. 2,01,600/-
2,01,600/
6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 13 as Rs. 26,20,800/-
26,20,800/-
per the age of 48 years (2,01,600 x 13)
7. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/-
18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 4) Rs. 1,92,000/-
1,92,000/-
10. Total compensation Rs. 28,48,800/-
28,48,800/-
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 18, 24,200/-
24,200/-
12. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 10,24,600/-
10,24,600/-
Thus, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for enhanced
compensation in equal proportions.
[12]. In the view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in "Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other,
reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as
6 of 7
24 (O&M)
"Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil)
443, the grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of cl
claim
aim petition till its
realization is justified. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the
same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period
of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the am
amount
ount of
compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced
compensation.
[13]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands
disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
January 23, 2026
2026 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
