High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/4907/2019allowed

Harpal Kaur And Others v. Om Parkash Kainth And Others

2026-03-05Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma13 pages

! "# $% &"

##($$

+ ", '-% .

('#

( )'

! '/.

("% &"

##($$

+ ", '-% .

('#

( )'

)( !('("0(1 2

)( !"

& 3(+( )1 5 2 #$

( 1

5 2 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced?

Yes 61 786999 96

Present:

Mr. Vishavjeet Bedi and Mr. Mohit Kaushik, Advocates for the appellants in FAO No. 4907$2019.

Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No. 4841$2019.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2$Insurance Company.

* * * 9 96 :8;

Since the challenge in the present appeals is on the same grounds, therefore, all the above mentioned appeals are decided, vide this common judgment.

The above mentioned two appeals are preferred against award dated 06.04.2019 passed in the claim petitions filed under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for

short, 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.66,15,112/$ along with interest @7.5% per annum, on account of death of Avtar Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 06.05.2017. 3.

As sole issue for determination in the above appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. 969998 989 4.

The learned counsel for the claimants$appellants (FAO No. 4907$ 2019) 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 compensation be enhanced as per latest law. 5.

The learned counsel for the claimants$appellants (FAO No. 4841$ 2019) contends that appellant No.2 (being the father of the deceased) was not awarded any amount by the learned Tribunal towards compensation and the compensation awarded to appellant No. 1 (mother of the deceased) by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law. 6.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent$Insurance Company, 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. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

98 8<69 8.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another =:

;29&#"(+( &") '('>, laid

down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:$ "30

!"#$

%# !"&$

&' !"($

31)

* (+,

$ . /

(+,

* * * * * * 42. )

&$ 0

1 $ !2 !(%+ %!%(

3!4%' #+

3!'#!#(

3!(#'&+

3!& &!&(

3!#&'(+

3!!(!((

35(''+

34'!'(

3(''4+

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. =: ;292 > 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;

(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. 6 conventional heads

7 %(+++

7 !+++++

0 9

;

7 !(+++ &++++ 7 !(+++

)

!+,

)

= = = = = 59.3)

(+,

#+,

&+(+

(+'+

!(,6

59.4*

&+,

6 %(,

&+(+

!+,

(+'+

59.5.

#+#%0> ?

59.6.

0> @ &%/

59.7

59.87

!(+++7 &++++ 7 !(+++

!+,

A 10.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 ?+ ( ("

$ '&"

3( +#

@8.+.)( *'

& + $.

'-&-"& + )-("'= :;9 5 >after considering 9 "$ *("+ :'&#"

; and "

@9()-.:9&#"

;has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:$ B216 <

C 0 8

;

D D

D D D

)

%!! Spousal consortium

/ D %!% Parental consortium

D %!# Filial consortium

3 /

23 3>

6 6

D C 0 8*

7 &++++

11.

A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased Avtar Singh was 43 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 43 years by placing reliance upon the post$mortem report (Exhibit P$12) which clearly shows the age of the deceased as 43 years. Furthermore, the learned tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14 which is in accordance with the settled law.

12.

A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was ₹ stated to be earning 59,366 per month while working as a Lecturer of Physical

Education in Government Senior Secondary School, Barsal, Ludhiana. In order to prove the said income, Gurmit Singh (PW$1) proved on record the salary slip of the ₹ deceased Avtar Singh, which shows the gross monthly salary as 59,366. The ₹ learned Tribunal has rightly taken the gross salary of the deceased as 59,366 per ₹ month, which on annual computation comes to 7,12,392. 13.

However, the learned Tribunal committed an error while deducting 30% income tax from the income of the deceased, which is not in consonance with the applicable income tax slabs for the Financial Year 2017-2018 (Assessment Year 2018-2019). As per the applicable tax structure, the total income tax payable ₹ ₹ ₹ comes to 46,978 ( 12,500 + 34,478). Therefore, the annual income of the ₹ ₹ ₹ deceased after deduction of income tax comes to 6,25,414 ( 6,72,392 − 46,978). ₹ The monthly income after such deduction would accordingly come to 52,118/$. 14.

A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to claimant/Appellant No.1, the mother of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation to claimant/Appellant No.2 (in FAO No. 4841$2019), the father of the deceased, merely on the ground that no evidence was produced to show that he was not doing any job or that he had no other son living. The said reasoning of the learned Tribunal is contrary to the settled principles of law. 15.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sadhana Tomar and others vs. Ashok Kushwaha and others, 2025 SSC Online SC 554. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are reproduced as under:$ B13.

9 F 3G %+%#$!0%+&H /

6 !522

!"#!"&

F & (

I/07 7 CG !524$#0%#&H

14.

30I

K G %+%%$ !& 0 4!%H

L B!'* D

M** 3>6

3>6

)

!'' 3>

A - $A 16.

Therefore, compensation is also liable to be awarded to claimant/Appellant No. 2 (in FAO No. 4841$2019), the father of the deceased, in

the same ratio and proportion as has been determined by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimant/Appellant No. 1, the mother of the deceased 17.

A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4rd towards personal and living expenses. Furthermore, the learned tribunal wrongly awarded 25% amount towards awarded future prospectus. Therefore 30% should be provided towards Future prospectus as according to the settled law.

18.

A further perusal of the award reveals that the amount granted under the conventional head of loss of consortium, is on the lower side and not in consonance with the prevailing standards. Therefore, the impugned award warrants interference and indulgence of this Court.

89 19.

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 06.04.2019 is modified accordingly. The appellants$claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as per the calculations made here$under:$ Sr.

No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income Rs.52118/$ Future prospects @ 30% Rs.15635/$ (30% of 52118) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/4 Rs.16938/$ (67753 X 1/4) 4.

Total Income Rs.50815/$(67753$16938) Multiplier Annual Dependency Rs.85,36,920/$ (50815X12X14) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/$ Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/$ Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/$

Parental : Rs. 40,000/$x3 Spousal : Rs. 40,000/$x1 Filial : Rs. 40,000/$x2 ) $ +#( '

'A 2A B

( &3).

Amount Awarded by the Tribunal '22A4AB -

3( + & ) 'A A B: 2 224;

20.

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 52 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation : ;4 9&#"(+( &") '(' A 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.

21.

Respondent$Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants, as per award dated 06.04.2019. The claimants/ appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the learned Tribunal.

22.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. :9 96;

5 2 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non$speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes