(O&M) Smt. Sabesh And Others v. Rajender Singh And Others



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2126-2004 Date of decision: 05.03.2026 Smt. Sabesh and others ...Appellants

Versus

Rajender Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensa2on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2.

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 11.06.1999, Mahender lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HR47-1464. The widow, two minor children and the parents of the deceased filed a claim pe22on under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa2on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Upon apprecia2on of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 09.06.2003 allowed the claim pe22on and awarded compensa2on of ₹3,12,400/- along with interest, holding the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

3.

The claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensa2on. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower

 side by the Tribunal. It is argued that since there were five dependents of the deceased, the deduc2on towards personal expenses ought to have been one-fourth instead of the deduc2on applied by the Tribunal. It is further contended that no addi2on towards future prospects has been made while calcula2ng the loss of dependency and that the compensa2on awarded under the conven2onal heads is also inadequate. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was working as a driver and was earning ₹2,500/- per month as salary and was also contribu2ng towards agricultural work, thereby earning a total sum of ₹6,500/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken into considera2on only ₹2,100/- per month as the income of the deceased.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company does not seriously dispute that the compensa2on is liable to be reassessed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009; Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333. However, it is submiAed that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the evidence available on record and therefore the same should not be substan2ally interfered with. 5.

Having heard learned counsel for the par2es and aBer perusing the record, this Court finds that the widow of the deceased, Smt. Sabesh, appeared as a witness and deposed that her husband Mahender was about 28 years of age and was working as a driver by profession. According to her tes2mony, he used to drive the truck belonging to Mamraj and was receiving a salary of ₹2,500/- per month. This version is duly corroborated

by PW4 Mamraj, the owner of the truck. Merely because PW4 was not maintaining any wriAen record regarding payment of salary cannot be a ground to discard his tes2mony, par2cularly when it has not been disputed that the deceased was a professional truck driver. In these circumstances, the income of the deceased deserves to be assessed at ₹2,500/- per month instead of ₹2,100/- as taken by the Tribunal. 6.

As regards the claim of addi2onal income from agricultural ac2vi2es, the evidence on record shows that the agricultural land stood in the name of the father of the deceased. The land con2nues to remain with the family and there is no reliable evidence to establish that the deceased was exclusively managing or deriving separate income from the said agricultural land. In the absence of cogent proof, the Tribunal rightly declined to add any amount towards agricultural income and this Court finds no reason to take a different view.

7.

Once the monthly income of the deceased is determined at ₹2,500/- and the age of the deceased at the 2me of death is 28 years, the compensa2on is required to be recalculated in accordance with the seAled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In terms of the judgment in Pranay Sethi, an addi2on of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made as the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Further, since there were five dependents of the deceased, the appropriate deduc2on towards personal and living expenses would be one-fourth, as held in Sarla Verma. For a person aged 28 years, the appropriate mul2plier is 17.

8.

Accordingly, the loss of dependency is reworked as under: Monthly income : ₹2,500/- Annual income : ₹30,000/-

ABer adding 40% towards future prospects : ₹42,000/- Deduc2on of 1/4th towards personal expenses : ₹10,500/- Annual loss of dependency : ₹31,500/- Applying mul2plier of 17:

Loss of dependency = ₹31,500 × 17 = ₹5,35,500/- 9.

Apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants are also en2tled to compensa2on under the conven2onal heads. Although the principles regarding consor2um were elaborately discussed in Pranay Sethi & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, keeping in view the fact that the accident occurred long back in the year 1999, the amount is required to be assessed keeping in view the parameters applicable at the relevant 2me.

10.

Accordingly, compensa2on of ₹20,000/- each is awarded towards loss of spousal, parental and filial consor2um to the five claimants, totaling ₹1,00,000/-. A further sum of ₹10,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

11.

Thus, the total compensa2on payable works out as follows: Loss of dependency : ₹5,35,500/- Loss of consor2um (5 × ₹20,000) : ₹1,00,000/- Loss of estate : ₹10,000/- Funeral expenses : ₹10,000/- Total compensa'on : ₹6,55,500/- 12.

The Tribunal had awarded a sum of ₹3,12,400/-. ABer deduc2ng the said amount, the enhanced compensa2on payable to the claimants works out to ₹3,43,100/-. The said enhanced amount shall be payable to the appellants-claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe22on 2ll its realiza2on. The amount

 shall be appor2oned amongst the claimants in the same propor2on as determined by the learned Tribunal.

13.

The liability of the respondents shall remain joint and several. The direc2ons issued by the Tribunal regarding liability of the insurance company shall remain unaltered.

14.

With the aforesaid modifica2on in the quantum of compensa2on, the present appeal stands disposed of. 05.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No