[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangeeta And Ors vs Karnail Singh And Ors on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M)
SANGEETA AND ORS.
......Appellants
vs.
KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.
......Respondents
Reserved on:- 24.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 16.03.2026
Uploaded on :- 23.03.2026
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. Arun Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.4-Insurance Company
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
01.09.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS
Nagar, Mohali 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 to the tune of Rs.20,25,000/- along
with interest @ 6 % per annum, on account of death of Surinder Kumar in a
Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 03.08.2014.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
1 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -2-
narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the
sake of brevity.
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
amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, 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.
5. They further contends that the learned Tribunal committed an
error in law by awarding compensation separately under the heads of "loss of
consortium" as well as "loss of love and affection". Therefore, they pray for
dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
7. 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
2 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -3-
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.
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
3 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -4-
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 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.
8. 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;
4 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -5-
(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 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
5 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -6-
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 should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
6 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -7-
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."
7 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -8-
9. 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:-
"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".
8 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -9-
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. 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
9 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -10-
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 the deceased, an
amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.
10. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased,
Surinder Kumar, was 36 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned
Tribunal has, therefore, rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 36 years
by placing reliance upon the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-7) and has
correctly applied the multiplier of 15 in accordance with the settled law.
11. A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the
deceased was stated to be working as a dairy farmer and was earning
Rs.2,40,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, PW-1 has placed on record
three registers Ex.P-2, P-3 and P-4, but the learned Tribunal has not
appreciated the same and assessed the monthly income of the deceased
merely on the guess work as Rs.10,000/- per month by stating that the said
registers does not substantiate the income of the deceased.
12. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
KUBRABIBI & ORS. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS.
2023 SCC Online SC 1855 has held.
10 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -11-
"In a matter of the present nature where the compensation
is sought and even in the absence of definite proof of the
income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in
perspective where such persons are employed in
unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is
required to be taken into consideration."
13. Furthermore this Court in number of judgments held that in cases
where compensation is sought and there is no definite proof of income,
particularly when the deceased belongs to the unorganised sector, the social
status, nature of work, and overall circumstances of the case must be taken
into consideration. Strict proof of income is not mandatory in such
circumstances, and a reasonable notional income is required to be assessed.
14. In the present case, the deceased was 36 years of age and was
stated to be engaged in dairy farming. He was maintaining three dependents.
Dairy farming is treated as part of the unorganised sector. So a strict proof of
income is not required to prove the same.
15. Considering the nature of his avocation, his age, social and
economic background, and the prevailing wages at the relevant time, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing
the monthly income of the deceased at ₹10,000/-, which appears to be on the
lower side and not reflective of his actual earning capacity.
16. In view of the totality of the circumstances, the monthly income
of the deceased is reasonably reassessed at ₹16,000/- per month for the
purpose of computation of just and fair compensation.
17. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses.
11 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -12-
18. Furthermore learned tribunal has erred in awarding 50% as future
prospects, whereas, it should be 40% as per the settled law.
19. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal committed an error in
law by awarding compensation separately under the heads of "loss of
consortium" as well as "loss of love and affection" is concerned, the said
submission merits acceptance.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Pathmavathi and Others v.
Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2026 INSC 131, has
recently clarified the legal position with regard to compensation under
conventional 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:-
"22. In Rajesh (supra), this Court recognised "loss
of love and affection" as a distinct head of compensation,
reflecting the non-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 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:
12 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -13-
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
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 [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54]
refers to Santosh 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 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.
13 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -14-
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 Bench 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 judicial 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 manifested 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 "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 suffered by children 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 of this Court in Pranay Sethi
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is
14 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -15-
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: [Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].
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". [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 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.
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.
15 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -16-
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
[Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC
OnLine Raj 3848; Uttarakhand 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 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 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) that apart from Rs. 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-Judge Bench of this Court harmonised
the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General 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 cases is confined to three conventional
heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
16 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -17-
expenses. At the same time, drawing upon Magma General
Insurance (supra), this Court clarified that consortium 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
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay 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, (2018) 18 SCC 130],
this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation 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 "loss 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 loss
17 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -18-
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.."
21. In 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
sustained in law. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the
said head is liable to be deducted from the total compensation.
22. A further perusal of the award reveals that the amounts granted
under the conventional heads namely loss of consortium is on the lower side
and not in consonance with the prevailing standards. Furthermore, learned
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of estate.
Therefore, the impugned award warrants interference and indulgence of this
Court.
CONCLUSION
23. 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 01.09.2015 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.16,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.6,400/- (40% of 16000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.7,466/- (22400 X 1/3)
expenditure 1/3rd
4 Total Income Rs.14,934/- (22400-7466)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.26,88,120/- (14934 X 12 X 15)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
18 of 19
FAO-8488-2015 (O&M) -19-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000 /-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
Parental : 1 x 40,000
Spousal : 1 x 40,000
Filial : 1 x 40,000
10 Total Rs.28,48,120/-
11 Deduction Rs.20,25,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.8,23,120/- (28,48,120-20,25,000)
24. 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.
25. The respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% 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 same to the appellants-
claimants in their bank account as per ratio settled in award dated 01.09.2015.
The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to
the Tribunal.
26. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
16.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
19 of 19
