[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Krishna Devi And Ors on 23 January, 2026
1 FAO-1569-2019
2019 (O&M) with XOBJC
XOBJC-78-2021
FAO-1569-2019
2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
XOBJC 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1569-2019
2019 (O&M)
with XOBJC-78-2021(O&M)
(O&M)
Reserved on: 12.01.2026
Pronounced on: 23.01.2026
01.2026
Uploaded on: 23.01.2026
01.2026
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Vs.
KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:
ent: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for the respondents-claimants/Cross-Objectors.
respondents Objectors.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of present appeal filed at the instance of Insurance Company,
prayer has been made for setting aside of the decision dated 21.08.2018 passed
by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as
"Tribunal"), whereby,
whereby Rs. 56,54,524/- along with pendente lite interest @ 9%
per annum was awarded as compensation to respondent No.1 to 4/claimants;
whereas, in this appeal, cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 read with
Section 151 CPC have also been filed at the instanc
instancee of respondents. No. 1 to
4/cross-objectors
objectors seeking enhancement/modification of the award passed by the
Tribunal.
FACTS
2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 being legal representatives of deceased, filed
claim petition before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation
ation to the tune
of Rs. 1 crore along with interest on account of death of Prem Chand in a motor
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
2 FAO-1569-2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
vehicular accident which took place on 03.08.2017, while alleging rash and
negligent driving of respondent No. 5/driver.
3. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence available on record, the learned
Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of the rash and
negligent driving of respondent No. 5, the driver of the offending vehicle.
Consequently, the Tribunal held the appellant along with respondents No. 5 & 6
to be jointly and severally liable, and awarded compensation in the following
manner:-
S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)
1. Gross monthly salary Rs. 50,551/-
2. Deduction of Income Tax Rs. 1,500/-
3. Net Income Rs. 49,051/-
4. Deduction towards personal expenses (1/4) Rs. 36,789/-
5. Add 15% future prospects Rs. 42,307/-
6. Annual Dependency (Rs. 42,307 x 12) Rs. 5,07,684/-
7. Multiplier (11) Rs. 55,84,524/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs. 40,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium Rs. 15,000/-
10. Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 56,54,524/-
4. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award, the present appeal was
preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company, for setting aside the award to the
extent of reduction of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal;
whereas the cross objections were filed by respondent No. 1 to 4/cross-objectors,
praying for enhancement of compensation.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the
impugned award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal was legally
unsustainable, been rendered in disregard of the settled principles governing
assessment of compensation. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
3 FAO-1569-2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
applying an incorrect multiplier of 11 despite the deceased having attained the
age of 55 years, whereas in view of settled law, a multiplier of 9 ought to have
been applied, particularly when the deceased was to retire within three years. It
was further argued that the learned Tribunal wrongly treated major children as
dependents without any cogent evidence of dependency and, consequently made
an erroneous deduction of only 1/4th towards personal and living expenses,
whereas a deduction of 50% was warranted as only the widow and mother could
be considered dependents. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed
to deduct income tax while assessing the income and future prospects of the
deceased and awarded a conditional rate of interest, which was impermissible in
law. He concluded his arguments by submitting that the impugned award being
contrary to the evidence on record and settled legal principles was liable to be set
aside or suitably reduced.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 4/CROSS-OBJECTORS
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants
submitted that the award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal was
grossly inadequate and contrary to the evidence on record and settled principles
of law. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to correctly appreciate
the evidence on record regarding the deceased's permanent and regular
employment as a Lineman with PSPCL, his steady increments and future
prospects, having assessed his income on the lower side. It was further stated
that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads, particularly loss of
consortium, was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and deserves suitable enhancement and thus, the impugned award be modified.
DISCUSSION
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
4 FAO-1569-2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. I
find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondents No. 1
to 4.
QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED
8. In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased- Prem
Chand, at the time of accident was 55 years of age and was drawing a monthly
salary of Rs. 50,551/- being employed with PSPCL. The learned Tribunal after
examining service record (Ex. PW2/A) and salary slip (Ex.PW2/B), rightly
accepted the said amount as the monthly income of the deceased. The learned
Tribunal thereafter deducted a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards income tax and,
accordingly, assessed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 49,051/-.
Although, evidence to the contrary was led by the appellants, but the same was
rightly discarded by the learned Tribunal, by upholding the income of the
deceased on the basis of documentary evidence produced on record in the form
of his salary slip (Ex.PW2/B). Therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court,
the determination of the monthly as 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 present appeal is
whether the learned Tribunal was justified in treating major children as
dependents and, consequently deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the
deceased.
9.1 From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that respondents
No. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Prem Chand. The testimony led by
the respondents No. 1 to 4 regarding their dependency upon the deceased has
remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
5 FAO-1569-2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
9.2 The learned Tribunal has applied a deduction of 1/4th, which is justified
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors."
reported as [2025 (2) RCR (Civil) 48] wherein it has been held that major
married and earning children of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a
right to apply for compensation, irrespective of their dependency status on the
deceased. The relevant para from the judgment is reproduced 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 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/-
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 opportunities only. Both of them
were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that
they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the
exposition in Birender (Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married
daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in
excluding these dependants."
QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS
10. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
"Sarla Verma & others v. DTC & another", (2009) 6SCC 121, "National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others" reported as (2017) 16 SCC
680 and "United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur", reported as
(2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional heads are also
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
6 FAO-1569-2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
required to be re-assessed accordingly. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are thus, held
entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/-
towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs.
1,92,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 4) as the respondents No. 1 to 4, being spouse, children
and mother of deceased are also entitled for spousal, parental and filial
consortium.
CONCLUSION
11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the respondents No. 1 to
4/cross-objectors are held entitled for the grant of compensation in the following
manner:-
S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)
1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 5,88,612/-
2. Deduction (1/4th) Rs. 1,47,153/-
3. Net Income (Rs. 5,88,612 - Rs. 1,47,153) Rs. 4,41,459/-
4. Future Prospects (15%) Rs. 66,218.85/-
5. Total Income (4,41,459 + 66,218.85) Rs. 5,07,677.85/-
6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of Rs.
11 as per the age of 55 years (5,07,677.85 x 55,84,456.35/-
11)
7. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 4) Rs. 1,92,000/-
10. Total compensation Rs.
58,12,456.35/-
11. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 56,54,524/-
12. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 1,57,932.35/-
Accordingly, respondents No. 1 to 4/cross-objectors shall be entitled to
receive compensation in the proportion already determined by the learned
Tribunal.
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
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
7 FAO-1569-2019 (O&M) with XOBJC-78-2021
other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled
as "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 claim
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 amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from
the enhanced compensation.
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed at the instance of Insurance Company is
hereby dismissed and the cross-objections for enhancement filed at the instance
of respondent no.1 to 4 is disposed of in view of aforesaid modification of the
award passed by the Tribunal.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
January 23, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.23 18:18
I agree to specified portions
of this document
