High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/3184/2017allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd v. Shilpa Jain & ORS

2026-01-15Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma17 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ......Appellant vs.

SHILPA JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS ......Respondents

Reserved on: 19.12.2025

Pronounced on: 15.01.2026 Uploaded on: 16.01.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?

YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

! "" # $$$$ SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

% & " '' ' '() &* + , % & - . / % & 01

- )) 2 344

,* & * , ,5 6 ) 477 "

, " < , & "

2 '

< , &* % &

& = & * SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIE S > 9? +,* ,* "

, &* % &

! &

, @ '( 9'(#

, ,

?%6 & " & = , ?%6 # ! % &

, @ * &* !0& - , +

", ) ! % &

#(;

(;

! % &

"* * & , , &

9 , , &* % &

& &

3 ! , * & "

A98 )49'(7 B-

. 1 " >6 2 ?

C "

< , &* % & = "

, % * * , ( ?

& SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION !0& - , +

Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] , , ,

9 B30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one'third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one'fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one'fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle.

4 In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non'earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one'third and contribution to the family will be taken as two'third.

* * * * * *

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas3, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M'17 for 26 to 30 years, M'16 for 31 to 35 years, M'15 for 36 to 40 years, M'14 for 41 to 45 years, and M'13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M'11 for 51 to 55 years, M'9 for 56 to 60 years, M'7 for 61 to 65 years and M'5 for 66 to 70 years. '

!0& - , +

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]

- )) )89 )4 2 344 "

9 .1 D "

@ , E .

- "

" E .+1 " & * "

E .D1 6& "

E .F1

" "

, &E 9,* @ *

6 %

9 B52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh2. It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed.

The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.

7 Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact'centric or quantum'centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.

* * * * * 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self'employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The

8 established income means the income minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma4 which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma1 read with para 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

!0& - , +

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC 130] "

Sarla Verma (supra) Pranay Sethi (Supra) " "

6 ,

9 "21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi2 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal

9 consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband'wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world'over have recognised that the

10 value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi2. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

'4 * , & "

*, ", , "

= "

9 ,* % &

, &* "

, @ '( 9# & ,

! * ,

* ?

& * "

&, % *

", Nidhi Bhargava versus national insurance Company Limited 2025 SCC online SC 872 " ,

"12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e., 12.08.2008, the Return for the Assessment Year 2008'2009 had not been filed, cannot disadvantage the appellants, for the reason that the period for which the Return is to be submitted covers the period starting 1st of April, 2007 and ending 31st March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the Return would be only for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, and date of submission would be post'31.03.2008. No income earned beyond 31.03.2008 would reflect in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2008'2009. To reject the Return on the sole ground of its submission after the date of accident alone, in our considered view, cannot be legally sustained.

13. The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible document on which the income assessment of the deceased could be made. This Court in Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228 affirmed that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of

12 Income Tax Return(s), when available, being a statutory document. In S Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC Online SC 182, we opined: '11. ...It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 [Para 17]; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 [Para 7], and K Ramya (supra) [Para 14 of 2022 SCC Online SC 1338].'

(emphasis supplied)

14. In Malarvizhi (supra), the Madras High Court relied upon the Returns 'for Assessment Year 1997'1998 and not 1999'2000 and 2000'2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the deceased' therein.

15. The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008'2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of the afore'noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim

13 of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As pointed out in Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 563: '13. ... In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the '... Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward' looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future. ...' ...'(2) [(2) Also reported as [2025] 4 SCR 63 | 2025 INSC 357] (underlined in original)

16. On the strength of the reasons afore'indicated, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the original amount [Rs. 31,41,000/' (Rupees Thirty'One Lakhs Forty' One Thousand)] awarded by the Tribunal in MACT No.357515/2016 as compensation is restored. Payment be made to the Appellants by the Respondent No.1 at the rate of 9% interest per annum after adjusting amount(s), if any, that may have been paid during the interregnum. The exercise be completed within two months from today, failing which an additional 9% interest per annum shall be payable for the period of delay, both on the principal amount as well as on the interest component, till the date

14 of actual payment. No order as to costs, in the circumstances."

# % & "*

?%6 '( '(#

, ) "

@ 9 ,* &,

, @

& , "

* ?

, "

, @

& =

? Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 !0& - , + " *

, & "

, @ %

Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476

@& &=

, @

,* 7 6 ,

"21. The third issue is "whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act" In the case of Sarla Verma & Anr. (Supra), this Court held "generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation." This Court further observed that "where the annual income is in taxable range, the word "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax". Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income'tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head

15 "salaries" one should keep in mind that under Section 192

(1) of the Income'tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "salaries" shall at the time of payment, deduct income'tax on estimated income of the employee from "salaries" for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source ('TDS' for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non' deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1A) of the Income'tax Act, 1961.

Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from "salary", the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income' tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee.

However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income."

4 "*

& ,

, @

₹3,27,983/ .88')3'

7(31 % ,*

Rs.27,332/ 3 % &

#(;

16 - 9,* 40%

& 5

@ "

% 58 & @ %

* % !0& - , + * " , * ,,&

,& "* * % "

" , , &* " * "

< , , * , &* -

, & "* 5 @ ' % & " ," ,

, ,

& & ''

? &

% '' ' '()

, "* % 9 , , , , 9 Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded * ?, 6 '788'59 '

(;

6 (3885959 .

(;

'788'1 D @ 5

6 3#))59 .84')# 5 1

17 % ?,

6 '4)3359 .84')#93#))1 #

7 ) D*

6 #4# #3)59 .'4)33 '

71 > F 6 4#(59

F@ 6 '#(((59 > +

4 (( -

4 ((

4 (( 6 ' '(((59 ( Total Compensation Rs.61,39,746/ , &*

% & Rs.64,87,743/ '

Enhanced amount Rs.3,47,997/ (64,87,74361,39,746) '8 -

&* !0& - , +

Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107 , 9 , "

, , , "

H '

% 9? +,*

, , "

% &

, , *

", % % &

& , , , "

9 , '# "

* 15.01.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub JUDGE

I = "59= "

I &