[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Jasvir Kaur And Others on 10 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
CII-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-3343
3343-2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC
XOBJC-92-CII-2022
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Jasvir Kaur and others ....Respondents
Reserved
eserved on : 06.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement:
Pronouncement:10.03.2026
Uploaded on ::17.03.2026
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. Gaurav, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate,
for the appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company (in FAO No. 3343-2022).
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1 and 2
for cross-objector (in X Objection No. 92 -2022).
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
FAO-3343-20
2022 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
19.01.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the
appellant/insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation
compensation,, on
1 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
the ground that Issue No. 1 with respect to negligence driving of offending
vehicle has been wrongly decided against the appellant
appellant-Insurance Company.
XOBJC-92-CII
CII-2022
2. The present cross-objection
objection ha
has been preferred by cross--
objectors/claimants (respondents No.1 to 2 herein) against the award dated
19.01.2022 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 16
166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal
Tribunal, for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the cross-objectors
cross objectors/claimants to the tune of
Rs.8,34,094/-- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of
Jasvir Singh (deceased).
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross
cross--
objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors
claimants/cross objectors (respondents No.1 to 2) are
arising out of the same award dated 19.0
.01.2022 passed by the learned
Tribunal, therefore, FAO-3343-2022 and XOBJC
XOBJC-92-2022 are decided vide
this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. On 18.11.2019, deceased Jasvir Singh after completing his job
in Phase VIII-B,
VIII B, Mohali was returning to his house in Village Sante Majra
while sitting on the pillion seat of a motor cycle bearing registration
no.PB27-F-1850
1850 which was being driven at fast speed and in a rash and
negligent manner by Sukhwinder Singh respondent no.
no.3.. When they were on
2 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
the road leading from Landran to Kharar and had gone little ahead from
Chapar Chiri and reached near the petrol pump of Chapar Chiri at about
06.10 am, at that time a stray cattle came from the left side of the road. Due
to more speed,
speed respondent no.3 could not stop his vehicle and in order to
avoid collision with the cattle, he took a sudden right turn and collided with
an unknown car which was in the process of overtaking the motor cycle of
respondent no.3.
no. Due to collision the deceased and respondent no.1 fell on
the road and both received injuries. Respondent
espondent no.1 escaped with minor iin-
n-
juries whereas deceased suffered serious injuries and was taken to Civil
Hospital, Kharar immediately where doctors on duty declared him brought
dead. FIR no.141 dated 18.11.2019 under Section 279,304
279,304-A
A of IPC was
registered at Police Station Balongi, District
rict SAS Naga
Nagar.
5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
admitted the factum of compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the learned Tribunal :-
:
"1. Whether Jasvir Singh has died in a road side accident due
"1.
to composite rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing
registration no.PB27-F-1850
no.PB27 1850 by respondent no.1 and unknown
vehicle?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether
Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effective
driving license at the time of accident?OPR
accident?OPR-2.
3 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
4. Relief."
Relief.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the
claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 2.. However, the appellant
appellant-Insurance
Insurance
Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present
appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
7. Learned counsel forr the appellant
appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company contends
that the First Information Report was registered against an unknown person.
He further argues
argue that there are material contradictions between the contents
of the FIR and the testimony of PW-2,
PW 2, the alleged eye
eye-witness,
ss, thereby
casting doubt on the manner of the accident. On this basis, he further
submits that the involvement of the offending vehicle has not been duly
established and the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Consequently, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2/cross--
objectors/claimants contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that
the accident took place due to composite negligence. He further ccontends
ontends
that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and
deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the cross
cross-objection
objection be
allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed and
amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the
relevant portion of the award:-
award:
"Issue No. 1:
7. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimants and they
were required to prove that the accident in question took
place due to composite rash and negligent driving of motor
cycle bearing registration no.PB27
no.PB27-F-1850
1850 by respondent
no.1 and driver of unknown
own car.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that in
the evidence of PW.2 Sukhvir Singh, who witnessed the
accident, factum and manner of occurrence had been
sufficiently proved. The involvement of the offending vehicle
is also proved from copy of first Information report, Ex.P10,
which was lodged with respect to the accident in question.
The statement of PW.2 Sukhvir Singh also fortify plea of the
claimants as regards factum and manner of the accident
showing that respondent no.1 was also negligent in driving
the motor cycle in question, which resulted into the accident
in which the deceased lost his life. The evidence recorded
before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the
contents of the First Information Report. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the claimants has relied
upon case law National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Chamundeswari and others bearing Civil Appeal No.6151
of 2021 decided on 01.10.2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
5 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
9. On behalf of the respondent no.2, it was argued by
learned counsel that factum and manner of occurrence
remained unproved. The further contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent was that in fact respondent no.1
was not negligent in driving the vehicle in question as the
FIR regarding the accident was lodged against the driver of
unknown vehicle. As such, the testimony of PW.2 Sukhvir
Singh which is contradictory to the contents of FIR cannot
be relied upon to prove the accident. The claim petition was
filed by the claimants in connivance and collusion with
respondent no.1 with an ulterior motive to get
compensation.
10. I have considered rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have gone through the record
carefully.
11. As per case of the claim
claimants
ants and as deposed by PW.2
Sukhvir Singh, eye witness of the occurrence and author of
First Information Report, that on 18.11.2019, he was going
from the side of Landran towards Sante Majra while driving
a motor cycle. At about 6.10 am, when he was on the road
leading from Landran to Kharar and had gone little ahead
from Chapar Chiri and reached near petrol pump of
Chapar Chiri, at that time a motor cycle bearing
registration no.PB27-F-1850
1850 overtook his motor cycle and
the same was being driven at fast spe
speed
ed and in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver Sukhwinder Singh. Jasvir
Singh was sitting as a pillion rider on the said motor cycle.
After overtaking his motor cycle, a stray cattle came from
he left side of the road in front of the motor cycle bear
bearing
ing
6 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
registration no.PB27-F-1850.
1850. Due to more speed, the driver
of said motor cycle namely Sukhwinder Singh could not stop
his vehicle and in order to avoid collision with the cattle, he
took a sudden right turn and his motor cycle collided with
an unknown car which was in the process of overtaking the
motor cycle of Sukhwinder Singh. After the accident the
driver of the car immediately ran away from the spot along
with his car. Due to collision, both the riders of the motor
cycle fell on the road. Sukhwinder Singh escaped with minor
injuries whereas Jasvir Singh suffered serious injuries and
was taken to Civil Hospital, Kharar immediately where
doctors on duty declared him brought dead. The accident
took place due to composite negligence of driving of motor
cycle bearing registration no.PB27
no.PB27-F-1850
1850 driven by
Sukhwinder Singh and the driver of unknown car whose
number could not be noted. Despite lengthy cross
cross--
examination, the respondent no.2 could not impeach the
credit of PW.2 Sukhvir Singh. Responde
Respondent
nt no.1 Sukhwinder
Singh driver of the offending vehicle, also did not appear
and contest the claim petition. Even on behalf of the
respondent no.2, no evidence was led to rebut the evidence
led on behalf of the claimants regarding manner of the
accident in
n question and the testimony of the eye witnesses
led in this behalf remained unrebutted. Moreover, it is well
settled that MACT case is to be decided on the basis of the
evidence led in the course of the proceedings of case.
12. In the present case, Sukh
Sukhvir
vir Singh PW.2 while recording
the FIR Ex.P10 attributed the entire negligence on the part
of unidentified car driver but respondent no.1 cannot be
7 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
held to be careful while driving the motor cycle in question
and he could definitely avoid the accident, in case he had
been driving the said motor cycle carefully. In case National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others
(supra), it is held if any evidence before the Tribunal runs
contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the
evidencee which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be
given weightage over the contents of First Information
Report.
13. Otherwise also, the Tribunal, in terms of Section 166 of
the Act, is not required to hold a regular trial but,
according to scheme of Act, it holds an enquiry for
adjudication of claims for award of compensation in respect
of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons,
arising out of use of motor vehicles. The adjudication of
claim in these proceedings has to be made on the
preponderance of probability. The quality of evidence and
not the quantity thereof, in totality of circumstances, clearly
proves the involvement of the respondent no.1 and the
offending vehicle bearing registration no.PB27
no.PB27-F-1850
1850 for
the accident in question
on and one car. The accident took
place due to composite negligence of respondent no.1 and
driver of the unknown car. As per copy of postmortem
report of deceased Ex.P7, the case of death in this case was
neurohaemorrhagic shock caused due to high infant iinjury.
njury.
The said cause was sufficient to lead death in ordinary
course of nature.
14. In view of above discussion, it is proved on record that
deceased Jasvir Singh died due to composite negligence of
8 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
respondent no.1-driver of motor cycle bearing registrat
registration
ion
no.PB27-F-1850
1850 and driver of unidentified vehicle as
mentioned in FIR Ex.P7. Therefore, this issue is decided in
favour of the claimants and against the respondent no.2.
11. A bare perusal of the record shows that tthe
he learned Tribunal,
upon a careful appraisal of the oral as well as documentary evidence on
record, has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the composite
negligence of respondent No.3 Sukhwinder Singh, driver of the motorcycle
bearing registration
stration No. PB27-F-1850,
PB27 1850, and the driver of an unidentified car.
A perusal of the award further reveals that PW
PW-2 Sukhvir Singh, eye-witness
witness
to the occurrence and the author of the First Information Report, gave a
consistent and cogent account of the manner in which the accident took
place. His testimony remained unshaken despite cross
cross-examination.
examination.
Significantly, respondent No.3 chose not to step into the witness box and no
evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents to reb
rebut
ut the version put
forth by the claimants/respondent
claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 22.
12. It is trite law that proceedings before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the issue of negligence is
required to be determined on the touchsto
touchstone
ne of preponderance of
probabilities. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence and in view of the
reliable testimony of the eye-witness,
eye witness, the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal attributing composite negligence to respondent No. 3 and the
unidentified car driver is based on proper appreciation of evidence and
9 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
settled principles of law. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out so
as to warrant interference by this Court. Conseq
Consequently,
uently, the finding of the
learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving is affirmed.
13. Adverting now to the contention of learned counsel for the
cross objector/respondent Nos. 1 to 2 that the compensation awarded is on
the lower side, the same is decided as under after taking into consideration
the settled law on compensation
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121]
121],,
laid
aid 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
fourth (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 ba
bachelor
chelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
10 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
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 otherw
otherwise,
ise, 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 inc
income
ome 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% aass 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
earning sisters or brothers, his personal and livin
living
g
expenses may be restricted to one
one-third
third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third.
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 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
11 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
35 years, M-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
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.
15. 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
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 fune
funeral
ral expenses, with
escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for
different ages: with permanent 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 head
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
ting 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
12 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an
n 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 varia
variation
tion 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, nam
namely,
ely, 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.
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 bbring
ring in consistency
in respect of those heads.
* * * * *
13 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
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 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 year
yearss 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
rsonal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma 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
14 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
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."
16. 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 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,
e, 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
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
rtium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training".
15 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an acciden
accidental
tal 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. Children are valued for their
love, affection,
ction, 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 ffar
ar 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
ompensation 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 paren
parentt 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 th
thee Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count. However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
16 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24.. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will
ill 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 the
deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of fil
filial
ial
consortium.
17. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was
49 years old at the time of the accident. The age of the deceased was not in
dispute, therefore the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the dde-
e-
ceased as 49 years by placing on reliance upon his driving licence (Ex P11))
and rightly applied the multiplier of 13.
18. A perusal of the impugned aaward
ward further reveals that the
deceased was stated to be working as a Security Guard with Fortress
Security in a private company and was stated to be earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. However, no document was produced to substantiate the said
income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly resorted to the minimum
wages notification applicable
applicable to unskilled labourer in Chandigarh and rightly
assessed the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.8777/
Rs.8777/-.. However, this
Court deems it fit to reasonably round of the same to Rs. 9000/-.
19. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased and
17 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
have rightly added 25% towards future prospects. Furthermore, meager
amount is granted under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
expenses. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross
cross-objections
objections filed by
the cross-objectors/respondents
objectors/respondents No.1 to 2 are allowed.. The award dated
19.01.2022 is modified accordingly. The cross
cross-objectors/respondents
objectors/respondents No.1
to 2 are held entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.
Rs.9000/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.
Rs.2250/- (25% of 9000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.
Rs.3750/- (11250 X 1/3)
1/
4 Total Income Rs.
Rs.7500/- (11250 - 3750)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.
Rs.11,70,000/- (7500 X 12 X 13)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.1
Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.
Rs.18,150/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.
Rs.96800/-
Spousal : Rs.48400
Rs. x1
Parental Rs. Rs.48400 x 1
Total Compensation Rs.
Rs.13,03,100/-
18 of 19
FAO-3343-2022
2022 (O&M) &
XOBJC-92-CII
Amount Awarded by the Rs.
Rs.8,34,094/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.
Rs.4,69,006/-
(Rs. 13,03,100- 8,34,094)
21. 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 cross-objectors/
objectors/
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.
22. The appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation
compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is
directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest in the
account of cross-objectors/respondents
cross objectors/respondents No.1 to 2 as per award. The cross--
objectors/ respondents No.1 to 2 are directed to furnish their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
23. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
10.03.2026
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
19 of 19
