[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Devi And Others vs Rajesh And Others on 10 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2941-2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2941-2012 (O&M)
Tara Devi and ors ......Appellants
Vs.
Rajesh and others ......Respondents
Date of Reserve: 09.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026
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. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
04.01.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak in the
claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,
'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the
claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.13,11,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum, on account of death of Pawan Kumar in a Motor Vehicular Accident,
occurred on 09.02.2011.
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.
1 of 14
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the
amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be
enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company
however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the
amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been
granted. Therefore, they prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. 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.
2 of 14
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle. 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.
* * * * * *
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
3 of 14
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.
7. 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.
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
4 of 14
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,
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
5 of 14
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 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."
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC
6 of 14
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 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.
7 of 14
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 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
8 of 14
the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.
9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased, Pawan
Kumar, was 30 years 2 months at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal
has, therefore, rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 31 years (Rounded off)
by placing reliance upon the Matriculation Certificate (Exhibit P-16) and has
correctly applied the multiplier of 16 in accordance with the settled law.
10. A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased
was stated to be earning Rs. 50,000/- per month by cultivating agricultural land on
a contract basis and by running a dairy in the village. In order to substantiate the
said income, the claimants/appellants placed on record Ex.P-1, the Income Tax
Return for the year 2010-2011 (relating to the assessment year 2009-2010) and
Ex.P-2, the Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010 (relating to the assessment
year 2008-2009).
11. However, the learned Tribunal declined to place reliance upon the
Income Tax Returns on the ground that the same were filed only two months prior
to the death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal also did not place reliance upon
Receipt Ex.P-7 for Rs. 1,85,786/- issued for sale of cane and Receipt Ex.P-8 for
Rs. 3,03,206/- issued by Rajni Enterprises, merely observing that such receipts
could easily be procured. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has assessed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/-. However, such approach adopted
by the learned Tribunal is unsuitable in the eyes of the law.
12. Reference at this stage can be made to the recent judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors. 2025 INSC 526. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced below :-
9 of 14
"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 1s of April, 2007
and ending 31 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
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]'
14. In Malarvizhi (supra), the Madras High Court relied upon
the Returns 'for Assessment Year 1997-1998 and not 1999-
10 of 14
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 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,
Singamma. United india@ Insurance Co.Ltd., (2009) 13
11 of 14
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
forwardlooking.
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."
13. In view of the above discussion and referred to judgments, this Court
is of the considered opinion that it would be just, proper and appropriate to place
reliance upon the Income Tax Returns of Deceased-Pawan Kumar.
14. In view of the Income tax returns and the overall circumstances of the
case, this Court deems it appropriate to reassessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs. 15,000/-.
15. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any amount
towards future prospects, which is contrary to the settled law. The claimants are,
therefore, entitled to 40% addition towards future prospects.
16. A further perusal of the award reveals that the amounts granted under
the conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses
are on the lower side and not in consonance with the settled law. Therefore, the
award requires interference and indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated
12 of 14
04.01.2012 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are entitled to
enhanced amount of compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.15000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.6000/- (40% of 15000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.5250/- (21000 X 1/4)
4. Total Income Rs.15750/-(21000-5250)
5 Annual Dependency Rs.30,24,000/- (15750X12X16)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
Parental : Rs. 40,000/-x3
Spousal : Rs. 40,000/-x1
Filial : Rs. 40,000/-x1
Total Compensation Rs.32,54,000/-
Deduction Rs.13,11,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.19,43,000/- (3254000-1311000)
18. 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, the appellants-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.
19. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a
period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in
13 of 14
the accounts of the claimants/appellants, as per award dated 04.01.2012. The
claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the
Tribunal.
20. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
10.03.2026
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
14 of 14
