(O&M) Darkali v. Subhash
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Darkali ...Appellant
Versus
Subhash and others
...Respondents
Reserved on: 06.05.2026
Pronounced on: 11.05.2026 Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4 - Insurance Company.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensa8on awarded vide judgment-cum-award dated 17.08.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul. 2.
The appellant-claimant is the unfortunate mother of deceased Siya Ram, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 14.05.1999. As per the case set up before the Tribunal, the deceased was travelling in bus bearing registra8on No.HR-47-0902. The said bus was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near Hasanpur Limestone, some passengers requested the driver to stop the vehicle. Though one passenger namely Ranbir Singh had already alighted from the bus, deceased Siya Ram was s8ll in the process of ge?ng down, when respondent No.1 suddenly accelerated the bus without ensuring that the passengers had safely alighted. As a result thereof, Siya Ram fell from the moving bus and sustained mul8ple grievous injuries. He
[2] was ini8ally taken to General Hospital, Narnaul and thereaAer referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. 3.
The deceased was stated to be about 30 years of age and unmarried. The appellant, being his sole surviving dependent mother, ins8tuted a pe88on under Sec8on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa8on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending bus.
4.
Upon apprecia8on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No.1 and that the said accident resulted in the death of Siya Ram. The Tribunal accordingly awarded compensa8on to the tune of ₹1,15,200/- along with interest, fastening joint and several liability upon all the respondents. While assessing compensa8on, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹1,200/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied the mul8plier of 8. No addi8on towards future prospects was granted and no amount was awarded under the conven8onal heads. 5.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the compensa8on assessed by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate and contrary to the principles subsequently crystallized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130. It has been argued that even in the absence of direct evidence regarding income, the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant 8me ought to have been taken into considera8on and further that the claimant being the sole dependent
[3] mother was also en8tled to consor8um and other conven8onal benefits. 6.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has not seriously disputed the applicability of the aforesaid principles of law. However, it has been contended that since the deceased was unmarried, deduc8on towards personal expenses ought to be 50% instead of 1/3rd.
7.
I have heard learned counsel for the par8es and have gone through the record with their assistance.
8.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No.1 have aMained finality and are not under challenge in the present appeal. Similarly, the liability of the respondents to sa8sfy the award is also not in dispute. The controversy in the present appeal is confined only to the adequacy of compensa8on awarded by the Tribunal.
9.
It is now well seMled that compensa8on awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must cons8tute "just compensa8on" within the meaning of Sec8on 168 of the Act. The expression "just compensa8on" has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court to mean compensa8on which is fair, reasonable and adequate, neither a bonanza nor a piMance. The Court, while determining compensa8on, is required to adopt a pragma8c and realis8c approach so as to compensate the dependents for the pecuniary loss suffered on account of un8mely death of the vic8m. 10.
In the present case, though there is no cogent evidence regarding the exact earnings of the deceased, yet the Tribunal was not jus8fied in assessing the monthly income at a meagre sum of ₹1,200/-. In the absence of direct proof of income, the minimum wages no8fied by the Government provide a safe and reliable yards8ck for assessment of income.
[4] The minimum wages applicable at the relevant 8me i.e. with effect from 01.01.1999 were ₹1,900/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at ₹1,900/-, making his annual income ₹22,800/-. 11.
Since the deceased was admiMedly 30 years of age at the 8me of death, addi8on towards future prospects is liable to be granted in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). As the deceased was below 40 years of age, an addi8on of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made. Consequently, the annual income of the deceased aAer addi8on of future prospects comes to be ₹31,920/-.
12.
Further, the deceased was unmarried and the appellantmother is the sole claimant. In such circumstances, deduc8on towards personal and living expenses is liable to be assessed at 50% in view of the ra8o laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). AAer making the said deduc8on, the annual contribu8on to the family comes to ₹15,960/-. 13.
So far as the mul8plier is concerned, the age of the deceased being 30 years, the appropriate mul8plier applicable would be 17 in terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total loss of dependency is assessed at ₹15,960 × 17 = ₹2,71,320/-. 14.
The claimant is also en8tled to compensa8on under the conven8onal heads. In view of the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), parental consor8um is payable to the mother of the deceased. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident pertains to the year 1999 and the award was passed in the year 2000, compensa8on under the conven8onal heads deserves to be suitably moderated. Accordingly, the appellant is held en8tled to ₹20,000/- towards loss of parental consor8um, ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹10,000/- towards loss of estate.
[5] 15.
The compensa8on payable to the appellant is thus re-assessed as under:- Head of Compensa4on Amount Annual income ₹22,800/- Addi8on of 40% future prospects ₹9,120/- Total annual income ₹31,920/- 50% deduc8on towards personal expenses ₹15,960/- Annual dependency ₹15,960/- Total Loss of dependency with Mul8plier of ₹2,71,320/- Loss of parental consor8um ₹20,000/- Funeral expenses ₹10,000/- Loss of estate ₹10,000/- Total Compensa4on ₹3,11,320/- 16.
Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of ₹1,15,200/-, the appellant shall be en8tled to enhanced compensa8on of ₹1,96,120/-. 17.
Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 17.08.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul is modified to the extent that the appellant-claimant shall be en8tled to enhanced compensa8on of ₹1,96,120/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe88on 8ll actual realiza8on. The liability of the respondents shall remain joint and several, as determined by the Tribunal.
18.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 11.05.2026