Paramjit Kaur v. Kalu Singh And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4574-2004 Date of decision: 05.03.2026 Paramjit Kaur and others ...Appellants
Versus
Kalu Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensa3on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 31.03.2001, Baljit Singh lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registra3on No. PB-10-W-1117. The widow, two minor children and the parents of the deceased ins3tuted a claim pe33on under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa3on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Upon apprecia3on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim pe33on and awarded a sum of ₹3,00,839/- as compensa3on along with interest, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. However, since the driver of the offending vehicle was found not to be holding a valid driving licence at the 3me of the accident, the Tribunal granted recovery rights to the insurance company to recover the awarded amount from the driver and owner a@er sa3sfying the award.
3.
The claimants have approached this Court seeking enhancement of the compensa3on awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was only 26 years of age at the 3me of the accident, yet the Tribunal failed to make any addi3on towards future prospects while assessing the income of the deceased. It is further argued that there were five dependents of the deceased, namely his widow, two minor children and parents, therefore only one-fourth deduc3on towards personal expenses ought to have been made, whereas the Tribunal wrongly applied deduc3on of one-third. It is also submiCed that considering the age of the deceased, mul3plier of 17 was liable to be applied in view of the seCled principles of law, but the Tribunal adopted the mul3plier of 16. It is further contended that inadequate compensa3on has been awarded under the conven3onal heads.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company fairly concedes that the compensa3on requires reassessment in the light of 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 submiCed that since the Tribunal has already granted recovery rights to the insurance company on account of the driver not possessing a valid driving licence, such recovery rights should remain intact. 5.
Respondents No.1 and 2, namely the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, had not contested the proceedings before the Tribunal and were proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, in the present appeal, no3ce to them stands dispensed with.
6.
The occurrence of the accident and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car No. PB-10-W-1117 are not in dispute before this Court. The only ques3on which arises for considera3on in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensa3on payable to the claimants. 7.
It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of wood and was earning ₹10,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was produced to substan3ate the said claim. In the absence of any reliable proof of income, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased no3onally at ₹2,000/- per month. It is no3ced that at the relevant 3me in the year 2001, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker were approximately ₹2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants has not seriously disputed the said assessment of income. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. 8.
Once the income of the deceased and his age are not in dispute, the compensa3on is required to be recalculated in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case and Pranay Sethi's case. The deceased was 26 years of age at the 3me of the accident. As per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi, an addi3on of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made where the deceased was below 40 years of age and was self-employed or on a fixed income. Further, since there were five dependents of the deceased, the appropriate deduc3on towards personal and living expenses is one-fourth. The applicable mul3plier for a person aged 26 years, as per the mul3plier table approved in Sarla Verma, is 17.
9.
Accordingly, the loss of dependency is reworked as under:
Monthly income : ₹2,000/- Annual income : ₹24,000/- A@er adding 40% towards future prospects : ₹33,600/- Deduc3on of 1/4th towards personal expenses : ₹8,400/ Annual loss of dependency : ₹25,200/- Applying mul3plier of 17:
Loss of dependency = ₹25,200 × 17 = ₹4,28,400/- 10.
Apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants are also en3tled to compensa3on under the conven3onal heads. Though the principles rela3ng to consor3um were elaborately clarified in Pranay Sethi and others & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the accident in the present case occurred in the year 2001 and therefore, the amounts are required to be assessed keeping in view the parameters prevalent at the relevant 3me.
11.
Accordingly, compensa3on of ₹20,000/- each is awarded towards loss of consor3um/filial consor3um/parental consor3um to the five claimants, totaling ₹1,00,000/-. A further sum of ₹10,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 12.
Thus, the total compensa3on payable works out as under: Loss of dependency : ₹4,28,400/- Loss of consor3um (5 × 20,000) : ₹1,00,000/- Loss of estate : ₹10,000/- Funeral expenses : ₹10,000/- Total compensa-on : ₹5,48,400/- 13.
The Tribunal had awarded a sum of ₹3,00,839/-. A@er deduc3ng the said amount, the enhanced compensa3on payable to the claimants works out to ₹2,47,561/-. To round off the figure, the enhanced
compensa3on is assessed at ₹2,48,000/-.
14.
The enhanced amount of ₹2,48,000/- shall be payable to the appellants-claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe33on 3ll its realiza3on. The amount shall be appor3oned amongst the claimants in the same propor3on as determined by the learned Tribunal.
15.
The liability of the respondents shall remain joint and several. However, since the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the 3me of the accident, the recovery rights granted to the insurance company by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 16.
With the aforesaid modifica3on in the quantum of compensa3on, the present appeal stands disposed of. 05.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No