High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/1121/2015allowed

Shally Rani & ORS v. Jasvir Singh & ORS

2026-04-07Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma16 pages

!!"#$% &%

%(#) #$% % *& ) (#+ , - *(#(.#/ ) (#+ 0 - , !(") ) (# + 1 - ,

+ 2

Present:

Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3%Insurance Company.

****

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala 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.15,02,000/% along with interest @ 6 % per annum,

on account of death of Rahul Jolly in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 15.10.2013.

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal 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.

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. Therefore, he pray for dismissal of the appeal. 5.

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

3 6.

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 !

"# $

4 & #$

$ !

$ ' ()*+,

-+$'()*.,

./$

' ()*0,

! !

1 $

$ 023

4$ $

1 $ $ $ $

$ 023

023

% $

' $ !

" '

* * * * * * 42.

# (., (

5$ "#

# ,$

)6( )0-2 -)-0 ,$ $ 7')8 -/+2 $7')/+)+0 $7')0+/.2

$7')..).0 $ 7')+./02

$ $

$7'))0)00 $7'90//2 $7'8 /)/0 7'0//82

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 5 0 , ,16 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. : conventional heads $ !

;

1 ; -0$222 !

$; )$22$222 ; )$22$222 !

;

= $

> " $

& : &

!$ " $

$ !

& $

" $ " ! 1 $ $ $ !

; )0$222$ ; .2$222 ; )0$222

? ' & '

" & )23

@ @ @ @ @ 59.3 $ 023

.2 $

+23$ .202 1

0 02/2 $ )03

59.4 1 ' (,

$ .23

.2 : -03

.202 )23 02/2

59.5 4

$ !

+2+-

59.6.

A C

59.7

59.8 ; $ $ $ !

; )0$222$ ; .2$222 ; )0$222

)23

1 8.

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:% E21 :# ? # F

$ G G

G$ G

$ $ $ $ $

$ !

-) ) Spousal consortium

$ $ $ $

-) - Parental consortium

$ G

$ $ $

7 -) + Filial consortium

: "

# $ $

7 ' H !

7A :

$ $

: : % #

% $

G G

< 1 $

;.2$222

A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident, which stands duly proved by the PMR Report (Ex. C%3). On the contrary, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the age of the deceased as 26 to 30 years. 10.

Reference at this stage can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of deceased as per post mortem report. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:% E)) % # ; 0$6)9*'(; 4 % ,

; )2$222*'(; ,

; 0$)+8*'(; 4 % '

" $

" % # ; -$022*'(; 4 %, $ ; 8$/+8*'(;

!% '

; 8$222*' (;

, #

$ .0 F'7 ;

) +2 )0 '

-0+2

$ )982 Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post8Mortem Report $

). "

( , ; .2$222*'(; 4 ,

)23

7 I 1 # J ;

$(-2)6,)6 ##)+2 $

K; .6$222*' ! 0L ; -$.2$222*'(; J " 4 ,

11.

In view of the above, referred to judgment, the age of deceased Rahul Jolly is ascertained as 25 years at the time of accident. Consequently, the learned Tribunal further erred in applying a multiplier of 17. As per settled law, the correct multiplier applicable in the present case is 18. 12.

Further, a perusal of the award shows that the deceased was ₹ stated to be earning 30,000 per month while working as a businessman dealing in Readymade garments in partnership and also as a building contractor. To substantiate this, a copy of the acknowledgment of filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) (Ex. P%1) was placed on record, which reflects the ₹ annual income of the deceased as 1,89,300. However, the learned Tribunal failed to take the said document into consideration on the ground that it was filed on the date of the accident. Such approach of learned Tribunal is untenable in the eyes of law.

13.

Reference at this stage can be made to the recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2025 INSC 526.

14.

The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below :% E)- M

$ )- -226$;: -226'-229 $

$ ; ):

$-228 +)7 $-226 $ $ ; 2) 2.

-228 +) 2+ -226$

'+) 2+ -226 +) 2+ -226 1

!;: -226'-229 ;

$ $

)+ 1

# Malarvizhi v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 1

!;(,$

1 S Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182$

N ))

1 1

! ;

$ : ?

1 # J $(-2)-,)) ##8+6KF )8LOP

# $(-2)0,-

##8/.KF 8L$ P;

( ,KF ).

-2-- ##J #)++6LQ ).

1Malarvizhi (supra)$7 % # ;H: )998')996

)999'-222 -222'-22)

)0 % #

;: -226'-229 ! 1 1

!;$ !:$

$ 4

$ 1

! =

; : $

' $

1 & % #

Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563N R)+

1P;

1 #

J $-2-- ##J #)++6$ "

S1 # J $(-229,)+ ##8)2$#

7A :)966

> "

$ :

15.

In view of the above discussion and referred to judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just, proper and appropriate to place reliance upon copy of the acknowledgment of filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) (Ex. P%1), therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.15,775/% (rounded off as Rs.15,800/%) for the purpose of determining the loss of income/contribution of the deceased to the family.

16.

A further perusal of the award reveals that the amount granted under the head of loss of consortium is on the lower side. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has awarded 50% towards future prospects, which is contrary to the settled law, therefore, 40% should be awarded towards future prospects as per the settled law.

17.

Furthermore, no amount has been granted under the conventional head of loss of estate and the amount granted under the head of funeral expenses is on the higher side, which is contrary to the settled law. Therefore, the impugned award warrants interference and indulgence of this Court.

18.

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 18.10.2014 is modified accordingly. The appellants%claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:% Sr.

No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income Rs.15,800/% Future prospects @ 40% Rs.6,320/% (40% of 15,800) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/4 Rs.5,530/% (22,120 X 1/4) Total Income Rs.16,590/% (22,120%5,530) Multiplier Annual Dependency Rs.35,83,440/% (16,590 X 12 X 18) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/% Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/% Loss of Consortium Parental : 2 x 40,000 Spousal : 1 x 40,000 Filial : 2 x 40,000 Rs.2,00,000/%

, ($"!

% 41848--9

)./$:(# Amount Awarded by the Tribunal #;"#/ ) "<(.#$ % 488--9 41848--88 19.

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 7 40, and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107 8 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. 20.

The respondent No.3%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 18.10.2014. The appellants%claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

21.

Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. 0 - ,

Whether speaking/non%speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes