National Insurance Co Ltd vs Birmati Devi And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2049 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Birmati Devi And Ors on 6 March, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                          -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
                           -.-
                                            FAO-1193
                                                1193-2021 (O&M)

National Insurance Co. Ltd.                                  ....Appellant

                                       Vs.

Birmati Devi and others                                      ....Respondents

                                            Reserved on : 16.01.2026
                                            Date of Pronouncement: 06.03.2026
                                            Uploaded on : 12.03.2026

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. Harjinder Singh, Advocate,
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate, for
            Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate
            for respondent No.3 and 4.
                                   -.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

10.03.2021 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Kaithal (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the claimants were granted

compensation to the tune of Rs.24,78,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% % per

annum, on account of death of Ravi Ra in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred

on 05.11.2018 18 and the appellant-Insurance Insurance Company was held liable to pay

compensation to the claimants/respondent /respondent Nos. 1 and 22.

                                  1 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                     -2-


FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
             DISP

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.11.2018, Ravi (since

deceased) along with his real elder brother were engaged in masonry work at

village Chochra, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. At about 6 P.M, when they

reached near Dera Sardaraon Wala, a tractor was going ahead of them but all

of sudden, the driver stopped his tractor trolley in the center of the road for

replying on his mobile phone, due to which he fell on the road, suffered

injuries on his body. He was taken to Cygnus Hospital, Kaithal Kaithal,, where

doctor declared him dead. FIR No. 598 dated 06.11.2018 was registered

against respondent No. 1 under Sections 283/304 283/304-A of IPC.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and

filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:-

issues:

"1. Whether Ravi Kumar son of Roshan Lal had died in a road road--

side accident, which was caused by the respondent No. I on

05.11.2018, at about 06:00 PM, within the area of P.S.Pundri. by driving the vehicle No. HR HR-08Q-5073, 5073, in a negligent manner? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the cla clai-

i-

mants are entitled to some compensation amount; if so. what should be the quantum and who has to pay it, out of the respo respon-

n-

dents? OPP

3. Whether the respondent No. I was not holding a valid and eef-

f-

fective Driving Licence at the time of accident? OPR

2 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -3-

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contr contra-

a-

vention of provisions under M.V.Act and the terms and cond condi-

i-

tions of the Insurance Policy Contract? OPR

5. Relief."

5. After taking into consideration n the pleadings and the evidence

on record, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the

claimants/respondent /respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant appellant-Insurance Insurance

Company submits that the deceased, Ravi, had himself contributed to the

occurrence of the accident. He further contends that the deceased failed to

maintain a safe distance of approximately approximately 10 10-15 15 feet from the vehicle ahead,

thereby violating basic road safety norms and traffic regulations. On this

premise, it is argued that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence

and, therefore, the liability could not have been fastened entirel entirelyy upon the

offending vehicle.

7. He further contends that the quantum of compensation awarded

by the learned Tribunal is excessive and not in consonance with the evidence

available on record. The he income of the deceased has been assessed on the

higher side without any reliable documentary evidence or material substa substan-

n-

tiating such determination.

8. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has

committed an error in law by awarding compensation separately under the

3 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -4-

heads of "loss of consortium" as well as "loss of love and affection." He has

placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble S Su-

u-

preme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi Sethi, 2017) 16 SCC

680] to contend that compensation under the head of "loss of love and affec-

c-

tion" is not permissible, and the claimants are entitled only to compensation

under the conventional head of "loss of consortium."

9. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, llearned earned counsel prays

that the present appeal be allowed and the impug impugned ned award passed by the

learned Tribunal be suitably modified by reducing the amount of

compensation.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (driver

and owner of the offending vehicle) contends that the learned Tribunal has

erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence

driving of offending vehicle. He,therefore prays that the present appeal be

allowed.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this thi case.

12. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award.

The same is reproduced as under:-

under:

"ISSUE No. 1:

14. Under this issue, the petitioners are required to prove

that on 05.11.2018, at about 06:00 PM, the accident under the

jurisdiction of Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, leading

4 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -5-

to death of Ravi Kumar, had occurred due to rash and negl negli-

i-

gent driving of tractor-trolley trolley bearing registration No. HR HR--

08Q-5073 5073 (offending vehicle), by respondent No. 1.

15. As per claimants and as revealed from report under se sec-

c-

tion 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, respon respondent

by stopping his tractor-trolley trolley bearing No. HR HR-08Q-5073 5073 in a

rash and negligent manner in the middle of the road for aat-

t-

tending mobile call, due to which motorcycle of Ravi Kumar

struck into the tractor-trolley trolley and he received serious injuries

and succumbedd to his injuries at the spot.

16. Ajay Kumar, the eye witness of accident appeared in the

witness box as PW-3.

3. He tendered his duly attested affidavit in

his evidence and elaborated upon the manner in which the aac-

c-

cident occurred. He deposed that on 05.11 05.11.2018 .2018 at about

06:00 PM, he and Ravi Kumar, were coming to their house, ssi-

i-

tuated at village Mundri, after finishing their work at village

Chochra, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. At about 06:00 6:00 PM,

when they reached near Dera Sardaron Wala, a tractor trol trolley ley

was being driven ahead of them and all of a sudden, the driver

(respondent No. 1) stopped the said tractor tractor-trolley in the mid-

d-

dle of the road and started replying on his mobile phone, due

to which motorcycle of deceased Ravi Kumar struck into the

tractorr trolley. Ravi Kumar fell on the road and suffered inj inju-

u-

                              5 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                               -6-

ries on his head, face & feet and died at the spot. Deceased

was taken to Cygnus Hospital, Kaithal but the doctor declared

him dead.

PW-33 Ajay Kumar, has been subjected to cross cross-examine examine

by learned counsel nsel for the respondents but despite sustained

cross-examination examination nothing significant has been come out from

him, which can create any doubt about the credibility of his

testimony.

17. Further, the testimony of eye witness PW PW-3 3 Ajay Kumar

is not only evidence, nce, his evidence stands corroborated by First

Information Report Ex.P1 and report under section 173

Cr.PC. Ex.P13. First Information Report was lodged against

respondent No. I on the basis of statement of PW PW-3 3 Ajay

Kumar recorded by policee who witnessed the accident. The

lodging of FIR is an important piece of corroborative piece of

evidence in an enquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tr Tri-

i-

bunal. Further, as per PMR Ex. P5, the cause of death is shock

and haemorrhage due to head injury. T The he injuries are ante

mortem in nature.

18. Respondents No. 1 driver and respondent No. 2 owner in

their written statements denied the factum of accident and

claimed false se implication. They led no evidence to prove wha what-

t-

                              6 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                -7-

ever they pleaded and to rebut the cl claim of claimants.

s. So, their

defence that no such accident took place is not sustainable

19. In the settled principle of law, the standards of evidence

in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking co com-

m-

pensation are not that strict as are under the criminal law for

saddling one with criminal liability.

20. It was held in the case of Oriental Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Smt. Charas Kaur and another', in FAO No.

5263 of 2013 decided on 23.2.2016 (P&H) (P&H),, that Tribunal is

not required to act as a Criminal Court to find out whether the

claimants have established the occurrence beyond shadow of

doubt.

In case of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. & Ors, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 335 335,, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that th the plea of negli-

i-

gence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as rre-

e-

quired to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of pr pre-

e-

ponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of

proof beyond reasonable doubt and filing of charge sheet

against ainst driver prima facie points towards his negligence even

his acquittal in the criminal case.

In the case of 'Mathura Devi and another Vs. Himachal

Pradesh Transport Corporation and another', 2009 (3)

7 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -8-

R.C.R. (Civil) SC 805,, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court

that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle

in a particular manner, may not be po possible to be done by the

claimants and the claimants are merely to establish their case

on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability probability.

It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

'Archit Saini and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited and others', AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1143 (Three

Judges Bench),, that it is well settled that the nature of proof

required in cases concerning ning accident claims is qualitatively

different from the one in criminal cases which must be beyond

any reasonable doubt.

It was held in the case of 'Sunita and others Vs. Rajas-

s-

than State Road Transport Corporation and another', AIR

2019 Supreme Court 994, that strict principles of proof in

criminal case are not attracted and standard to be followed in

claim cases is one of preponderance of probability rather than

proof beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In view of the deposition of PW3 Ajay Kumar, coupled

with report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Pr Pro-

o-

cedure, 1973 Ex.P13, which was prepared after due investig investiga-

a-

tion and forwarded to the Court against respondent No. 1 and

respondent No. I not stepping in the witness box to rebut the

8 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -9-

evidence of rash and nd negligent driving of the offending vehicle

adduced against him, the petitioners have been able to prove

the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by re res-

s-

pondent No. 1, leading to death of Ravi Kumar. In these ci cir-

r-

cumstances, this Tribunal decides cides issue No. 1 in favour of the

petitioners and against the respondents.

respondents."

13. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned

Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on

record, has rightly concluded that the accident in question occurred solely

due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e.

tractor-trolley trolley bearing registration No. HR-08Q HR 08Q-5073.

14. The award further reflects that PW PW-3 3 Ajay Kumar, who is an

eye-witness witness to the occurrence, categorically deposed that the offending

vehicle was moving ahead of the motorcycle being driven by the deceased

and that respondent No. 3,, the driver of the tractor tractor-trolley, trolley, suddenly stopped

the vehicle in the middle middle of the road without any warning or justifiable

cause. As a result thereof, the motorcycle driven by the deceased struck the

rear portion of the tractor-trolley, tractor trolley, causing the deceased to fall on the road

and sustain fatal injuries.

15. The testimony of PW-33 Ajay Kumar is clear, cogent and consi consis-

s-

tent. Nothing material could be elicited during his cross cross-examination examination so as to

cast any doubt upon his presence at the spot or to discredit his version rre-

e-

garding the manner in which the accident occurred. His de deposition position inspires

9 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -10-

confidence and stands duly corroborated by the prompt registration of the

First Information Report as well as other attendant circumstances appearing

on the record.

16. It has also come on record that there were no speed breakers,

intersections ections or other obstructions on the road which could have necessitated

sudden stoppage of the tractor-trolley.

tractor trolley. In such circumstances, abruptly sto stop-

p-

ping a vehicle in the middle of the road without any signal or reasonable

cause clearly amounts to negligent act, particularly when another vehicle is

following in the same direction. The mere fact that the motorcycle collided

with the offending vehicle from behind cannot, ipso facto,, give rise to a

presumption of negligence on the part of the dec deceased.

eased. The issue of

negligence has to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on

record and not on the basis of conjectures or assumptions.

17. Significantly, the FIR in the present case was registered

promptly against the driver driver of the offending vehicle. After conducting due

investigation, the police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure indicting respondent No. 3 for offences arising out of

rash and negligent driving. Filing iling of the charge charge-sheet sheet clearly indicates that

the investigating agency, upon evaluation of the material collected during

investigation, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the driver of the

offending vehicle.

18. On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle, apart

from making a bald denial in the written statement, did not step into the

10 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -11-

witness box nor led any independent oral or documentary evidence to sub subs-

s-

tantiate the plea that the accident occurred due to negligence on the par partt of

the deceased. Similarly, the appellant-Insurance appellant Insurance Company also failed to pr pro-

o-

duce any cogent material in support of its plea of contributory negligence.

Mere ere assertion, unsupported by substantive evidence, cannot form the basis

for recording a finding that that would result in the reduction of just compens compensa-

a-

tion payable to the dependents of the deceased.

19. It is a settled principle of law that the burden to establish co con-

n-

tributory negligence lies squarely upon the party alleging it. In Jiju

Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, Mohan 2013 (9) SCC 166 166, the Hon'ble Su-

u-

preme Court held that in the absence of direct or reliable evidence, it would

be impermissible to apportion negligence merely on surmises. The said pri prin-

n-

ciple was reiterated in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, 2015 (1) SCC 339 339,,

wherein it was observed that negligence cannot be inferred on conjectures or

solely on the basis of the nature of impact without substantive proof esta estab-

b-

lishing fault on both sides.

20. In the present case, the appellant appellant-Insurance Insurance Company has

sought to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased primarily on the

premise that he ought to have maintained a safe distance from the vehicle

moving ahead. While maintaining a safe distance is undoubtedly a rule of

prudence in road safety, its breach cannot be presumed in the absence of any

evidence demonstrating rashness or lack of due care on the part of the dde-

e-

ceased. The material available on record does not disclose any act or

11 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -12-

omission attributable to the deceased which could reasonably be said to have

contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

21. It is further noteworthy that no specific issue with regard to

contributory negligence was framed by the learned Tribunal. In M. Nithya v.

SBI Generall Insurance Co. Ltd. arising out of SLP(C)-833-834 834 of 2023

decided on 03.01.2025, 03.01.2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held

that where no issue on contributory negligence is framed and no evidence is

led in support thereof, it would be impermissible to reduce the compensation

on such a plea at a later stage. The ratio laid down in the said judgment

squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the

findings recorded by the learned Tribunal Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent

driving are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles

of law. The said findings are well-reasoned well reasoned and do not suffer from any ill ille-

e-

gality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in

appellate jurisdiction.

23. Adverting now to the second limb of the argument advanced on

behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, that the quantum of

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side, the

same is examined hereunder.

24. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was

stated to be working as a skilled mason and earning a sum of Rs.20000/ Rs.20000/- per

month. It is further transpires that no documentary evidence whatsoever was

12 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -13-

produced by the claimants to substantiate the said assertion regarding

income.

25. It is also evident that the learned Tribunal, despite the absence

of proof of income, proceeded to assess the monthly income of the deceased

at Rs.15000/-

Rs.15000/ by placing reliance upon the minimum wages. The said

approach, however, suffers from material infirmity.

26. It is a settled position of law, as laid down by the Hon ble

Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav & Ors., reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198 198, thatt in cases where there is no

documentary evidence of income, the minimum wages notification may be

adopted as a guiding factor, but the same cannot be treated as an inflexible

or absolute standard. The Apex Court has further held that a reasonable

amount off guesswork, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, is

permissible and indeed necessary while assessing the income of the

deceased

27. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, and keeping in

mind the nature of employment, age of the the deceased, and the overall facts

and circumstances of the present case, it would be just, fair, and reasonable

to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.17000/- for the purpose

of determining compensation.

28. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal committed an error

in law by awarding compensation separately under the heads of "loss of co con-

n-

                                 13 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                  -14-

sortium" as well as "loss of love and affection" is concerned, the said su sub-

b-

mission merits acceptance.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Pathmavathi and Others v.

Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2026 INSC 131 131,, has

recently clarified the legal position with regard to compen compensation under con-

n-

ventional heads. The Apex Court has categorically held that "loss of love

and affection" is not an independent or distinct head of compensation, and

the same stands subsumed within the broader concept of consortium, which

includes spousal, parental and filial consortium. Consequently, separate

compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is impermissible.

The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:

under:-

"22. In Rajesh (supra), this Court recognised "loss of love and affection" as a distinct head of compensation, reflecting the non non-pecuniary pecuniary deprivation suffered by family members upon the untimely death of a loved one. However, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) expressly disapproved this approach holding that Rajesh (supra) was rendered per incuriam and that compensation should be confined to three ee conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in order to preserve consistency and certainty in awards. Observing disagreement, Pranay Sethi (supra) held thus:

52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of

14 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -15-

consortium and Rs 1,00,000 ,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 [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54] refers to Santosh osh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,, (2012) 6 SCC 421], 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 criteri criterion.

on. 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 no noticed.

ticed.

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 d 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, 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 fact-centric centric or quantum-centric.

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

15 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -16-

disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.

23. There can be no quarrel with the binding nature of Pranay Sethi (supra). Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution Bench decision must prevail over a judgment of a Ben Bench ch of lesser strength. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to follow the law declared therein.

24. That said, it is difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that underlies this exclusion. The head of "future prospects"

itself is a creation of judici judicial al interpretation, evolved to respond to socio- economic realities and the legitimate expectations of dependents. If the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation manifeste manifestedd in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents.

25. The concern expressed in Pranay Sethi (supra) was primarily one of consistency and avoidance of unguided discretion. However, consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated to a point where it eclipses the core objective of awarding arding "just compensation". The law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in cases involving the sudden rupture of familial bonds.

26. It is in this context that the subsequent decision of this Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram17 assumes significance. This Court expanded the ambit of "consortium" to include parental and filial consortium, implicitly acknowledging the emotional and relational loss

16 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -17-

suffered by children ldren and parents alike. (2018) 18 SCC 130 This doctrinal expansion suggests that the distinction between "consortium" and "loss of love and affection" may be one of form rather than substance. The coordinate Bench ruled as follows:

21. A Constitution Bench ch of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi Sethi,, (2017) 16 SCC 680] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these hea heads ds is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium".

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solacee 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: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining ning to the relationship of a husband husband-wife wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 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 ac accidental cidental 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.

                             17 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                               -18-

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 over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium tium 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 fa families, milies, 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 w who ho lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram Ram,, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848; Uttarakhand akhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar,, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine ne Kar 74]. 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 Sethi. In

18 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -19-

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.

27. Interestingly, we find from paragraph 25 of Magma General Insurance (supra) upra) that apart from Rs. 80,000/ 80,000/--

awarded on account of filial consortium, this Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss and affection in addition.

28. More recently, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Satinder Kaur18, a three-Judg Judgee Bench of this Court harmonised the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General neral Insurance (supra) to ensure uniformity in the award of compensation under conventional heads. Reaffirming the binding nature of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court held that compensation in death cas cases es is confined to three conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. At the same time, drawing upon Magma General Insurance (supra), this Court clarified that consortium rtium is a compendious concept encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium. It was further held that loss of love and affection is subsumed within loss of consortium and cannot be awarded as a separate head. This Court held as follows:

(2021) 11 SC 780

34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.

Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National

19 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -20-

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi Sethi,, (2017) 16 SCC 680], has recognised only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Ram,, (2018) 18 SCC 130], this Court gave a comprehensive interpretatio interpretation n to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.

35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.

29. Consistent with the aforesaid position but notwithstanding the reservations noted earlier, this Court is bound by the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), which does not countenance "lo "loss ss of love and affection" as a distinct head of compensation. As subsequently clarified in Satinder Kaur (supra), referring to both Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra), the non-pecuniary pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of love and affection is comprehended within the broader head of "consortium". Consequently, no separate award under the head of loss of love and affection is warranted.

ed.."

30. In n view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the award of compensation granted by the learned

Tribunal under the separate head of "loss of love and affection" cannot be

20 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -21-

sustained in law. Accordingly, the amount amount awarded by the Tribunal under

the said head is liable to be deducted from the total compensation.

31. A perusal of the award further reveals that compensation

awarded under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of

consortium is on the lower side and deserves to be recalculated in the light

of settled law of Hon'ble the Supreme Supreme Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] 121],,

laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of

the same are as under:-

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 one--

third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) 1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth 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 princi principle.

ple. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor

21 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -22-

would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which h 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 red 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 sur survived vived 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 lar large ge 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 earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one one-third third and contribution to the family will be taken t as two-third.

third.

* * * * * *

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 17 for 26 to 30 years, M M-16 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 15 for 36 to 40 years, M M-14 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every

22 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -23-

five years, that is, M-11 M 11 for 51 to 55 years, M M-9 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 M 7 for 61 to 65 years and M M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

33. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has as clarified

the law under Sections 166, 163-A 163 A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the following aspects:-

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 anent job; self self-employed employed or fixed

salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

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 relat relating ing 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

23 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -24-

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 variat variation ion 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, name namely, ly, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, 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 fact-centric or quantum-centric.

centric.

Wee 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 br bring ing 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

24 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -25-

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 self-employed 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 established income means the income minus the tax component.

59.5.. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal sonal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴⁴ 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.

ly. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

years."

25 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -26-

34. 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:-

under:

"21.. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded arded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal 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 too the relationship of a husband husband-wife 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 ture 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

26 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -27-

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 world-over over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation ation 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 nsation 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 ng compensation under "loss of consortium" as

27 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -28-

laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amountt of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."

35. In view of the above discussion, the amount is required to be recalculated and the same is recalculated as under:

under:-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income Rs.17,000/-

2 Future Prospects @ 40 Rs.6,800/- (40% of 17,000)

3 Deduction towards personal Rs.11,900/- (23,800 X 1/2)

4 Total Income Rs.11900/- (23800 - 11,900)

7 Annual Dependency Rs.25,70,400/- (11900 X 12 X 18)

8 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

9 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-

10 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800/-

Parental : Rs.48,400/- x 2

Total Compensation Rs.27,03,500/-

Amount Awarded by the Rs.24,78,000/- Tribunal

Enhanced amount Rs.2,25,500/-

(Rs. 27,03,500 - Rs.24,78,000)

36. The aforesaid re-computation computation gives rise to a further issue, i.e.

whether the award passed by the Tribunal can be enhanced in an

28 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -29-

appeal preferred by the insurance company, when the claimants have

not filed any cross-objection cross or cross-appeal.

appeal.

37. This question came up for consideration before this Court urt in

FAO AO No. 5934-2015 5934 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Smt. Laltesh and others, others, decided on 31.01.2026 wherein this Court has

categorically held that the compensation can be enhanced in appeal filed by

Insurance Company even in the absence of cross objection or cross appeal

filed by the claimants.

claimants The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as

under:-

"28. This question came up for consideration before three three--

Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surekha & Ors. v. Santosh & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 467. The relevant por-

r-

tion of the said order reads as follows:

1. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 44-1-2019 [Shriram Gen-

eral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surekha, 2019 SCC O On-

Line Bom 12] passed by the High Court of Judic Judica-

ture at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First A Ap-

peal No. 2564 of 2016, whereby the High Court, even though agreed with the stand of the appe appel-

lants that just compensation amount ought to be Rs 49,85,376 (Rupees forty forty-nine lakhs eighty-five five thousand three hundred seventy seventy-six only), howev-

er, declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that at the appellants had failed to file cross cross-

appeal.

                                  29 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                  -30-

2. By now, it is well--settled that in the matter of in- surance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hype hyper-

technical approach and ensure that just compe compen-

sation is awarded warded to the affected person or the claimants.

3. As a result, we modify the order passed by the High Court to the effect that the compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined at Rs 49,85,376 (Rupees forty forty-nine lakhs eighty-five five thousand three ree hundred seventy seventy-six only), with in-

terest thereon as awarded by the High Court.

4. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pen Pend-

ing applications, if any, stand disposed of."

29. In view of the above, settled principles of law as held by Apex Court thiss Court can award just and reason reasona-

ble compensation by enhancing the amount of co com-

pensation, even in the absence of a cross cross-objection objection or cross-appeal appeal by the claimants.

30. This conclusion is further strengthened by the settled principle that a Court adjudic adjudicating ating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act is duty duty-bound bound to award just and fair compensation to victims of road accidents, unr unre-

strained by strict rules of pleadings and evidence, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors (2003)2SCC 274.

31. Furthermore, this Court in FAO FAO-5834-2016 titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Mathri Devi and others decided on 12.09.2025 has already dealt with similar issue and held as under:

under:-

30 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -31-

"This Court in FAO-195 195-2006, titled Mamata and others v. Happy and others others,, decided on 29.05.2024, while examining the scope of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 107 CPC read with Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, has held as follows:-

"11. RELEVANT PROVISONS UNDER THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 107 :- Powers of Appellate Court.

Court.-- (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an Appellate Court shall have power power--

(a) to determine a case finally;

(b) to remand a case;

(c) to frame issues and refer them for trial;

(d) to take additional evidence or to require such evevi-

i-

dence to be taken.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original riginal jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.

Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:-

33. Power of Court of Appeal Appeal.--The The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed oorr made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents ondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and

31 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -32-

may, where there have been decrees in cross cross-suits suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit be eex-

x-

ercised in respect of all or any of the decre decrees, es, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees:

[Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is pr pre-

e-

ferred has omitted or refused used to make such order.] 12 to 18 XXX XXX XXX

19. As per Section 107 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which refers to the powers of the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties ass are conferred and imposed by the Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein, and the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 since being a beneficial legislation, the evidence led by the parties cannot be ignored by the Appellate Autho Authority.

20 to 25 XXX XXX XXX CONCLUSION

26. The Appellate Courts for the purpose of doing complete justice between the parties and co com-

m-

pletely adjudicating upon all the disputes, after aap-

p-

preciating the whole evidence on record, have power under Section 107 re read ad with Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further decree or order as the case may rre-

e-

                             32 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                  -33-

quire, and this power may be exercised by the Court urt notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, aal-

l-

though such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection.

27. Motor vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation. Generally the victims/claimants/legal victims/claimants/legal--

representatives are not aware of their right to compensation and it is Advocates who decide uun- n-

der which provision of the statute the claim petition is to be filed. Before deciding the claim pet petitions, itions, after appreciating the evidence on record, it is the bounden duty of the Court to apprise the parties of their legal rights as to under which provision they can get the maximum of benefit/compensation. The Judges should apply their judicial mind af after ap-

p-

preciating the evidence on record, gravity of oof-

f-

fence, gravity of loss, conduct of parties and over all facts and circumstances of each case and after that decide the same. The Court should not go into the technicalities that under which provision of statute case is to be filed, specially in the motor accident cases. If at any stage after appreciating the evidence, since it is original jurisdiction of the Court and the case is at initial stage, normally a person of ordinary prudence can calculate the loss of near and dear one's/relationship, the Judge feels that case of the claimant falls under a particular section he should apprise the parties regarding the

33 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -34-

same. The Courts should not apply straight jacket formula in every case and are presumed actual actually ly to do the justice by applying their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The beneficial intent of the legislation ought to be borne in mind and procedural and technical fo for-

r-

malities cannot be invoked to defeat the purpose of the legislation.

28. The Courts have to be very cautious and car care-

e-

ful while accepting the prayer of the clai claim-

m-

ants/appellants to convert the claim petition filed under Section I63-A

-A A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section 107 read wi with th Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC the general rule is that an appeal is persistence of a suit and, therefore, an Appellate Court can do, while the appeal is pen pend-

d-

ing, what the original Court could have done while the suit was pending. Thus, as per Section 107 O Or-

r-

der er XLI Rule 33 of CPC, an Appellate Court is eem-

m-

powered to re-appreciate appreciate the evidence. While hea hear-

r-

ing the appeal it is very important for a judge to apply his judicial mind. The Appellate Authority can re-appreciate appreciate the evidence before it. The grant of just and fair compensation is a statutory respo respon-

n-

sibility of the Court.

29. Over all conclusion of the above is that the Appellate Court has power to convert the petition under Section 163--A A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to give justice to the clai-

i-

mants."

                             34 of 36

 FAO-1193-2021
         2021 (O&M)                                                 -35-

13. It is manifest from the above discussion that although respondents/claimants No.1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, and the present appeal has been instituted solely by the appe appel-

l-

lant-Insurance Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation, the settled principle of law is that an aap-

p-

peal is a continuation of the original proceedings. Co Con-

n-

sequently, the appellate court is vested with ample juri juris-

s-

diction to mould relief and to award just and proper compensation, tion, even in the absence of a cross cross-appeal appeal by the claimants.

14. In exercise of such appellate powers, this Court ca can-

n-

not overlook the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which has been consistently interpreted as a piece of social welfare legislation egislation intended to provide just compensation to victims of motor accidents and their dde-

e-

pendents. The statutory duty of the Court is to ensure that the claimants are not deprived of legitimate entitlement merely due to procedural technicalities such as the ab-

b-

sence of a cross-appeal.

15. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, and to secure the ends of a fair adjudication, this Court deems it aap- propriate to award a further sum of ₹18,150/- under the head "Loss of Estate" in favour of respondents/claimants No.1 and 2.

16. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 435 that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are vested with th latitude to determine "just compensation"

and are not shackled by rigid arithmetical rules or strict

35 of 36

FAO-1193-2021 2021 (O&M) -36-

standards of evidence as in civil suits for damages. Inte Inter-

ference by the Appellate Court is warranted only when the award of compensation is manifestly excessive, arbi- trary, or contrary to settled principles.

principles."

38. 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 Nadu State Transport

Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107 107, respondent No.1 and 2--

claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount

from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

39. The appellant-Insurance Insurance Company is directed to deposit the een-

n-

hanced amount of compensation alongwith interest with the Tribunal within

a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to di dis-

s-

burse the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest in the ac-

c-

count of the claimants/respondents claimant /respondents No.1 and 2 as per award dated

10.03.2021.. The claimants/respondent claimant /respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to furnish

their bank account details to the Tribunal.

40. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits,

stands dismissed.

dismissed

41. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

06.03.2026                             (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Gaurav Arora                                    JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking speaking/non speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No

36 of 36