Anisha And ORS v. Virender And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision : 28.01.2026 ANISHA AND ORS .... Appellants

VERSUS

VIRENDER AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Ms. Kajal, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 14.07.2017.

2.

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

3.

The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded 1.

Monthly income ₹15,000 2.

Annual income [₹15,000 x 12] = ₹1,80,000 3.

Deduction 1/4th [₹1,80,000 - ₹45,000] = ₹1,35,000 Multiplier of 17 [₹1,35,000 x 17] = ₹22,95,000 Funeral expenses ₹25,000 Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000 Total Compensation ₹24,20,000 Interest @ 7.5% per annum

-2Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellants would contend that though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the income as assessed, the deduction made, and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. Learned counsel would further contend that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

Heard.

7.

In the present case since there is no challenge to the income as assessed, the deduction made and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained. No addition has been made towards future prospects. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), @ 40% addition is made towards future prospects. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are on the lower side. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

-3Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimantappellants would be entitled to ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The claimant-appellants, being the widow, the children and the parents of the deceased, would also be entitled to ₹48,000 each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of consortium.

8.

Accordingly, the reworked compensation to which the claimantappellants are entitled to is as under : Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded 1.

Monthly income ₹15,000 2.

Annual income [₹15,000 x 12] = ₹1,80,000 3.

Deduction 1/4th [₹1,80,000 - ₹45,000] = ₹1,35,000 Future prospects @40% [₹1,35,000 + ₹54,000] = ₹1,89,000 Multiplier of 17 [₹1,89,000 x 17] = ₹32,13,000 Funeral expenses ₹18,000 7.

Loss of estate ₹18,000 8.

Loss of consortium (i) Spousal (ii) Filial (iii) Parental ₹48,000 [₹48,000 x 2] = ₹96,000 [₹48,000 x 2] = ₹96,000 Total = ₹2,40,000 Total Compensation ₹34,89,000 9.

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed by the Tribunal.

-410.

In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 (SC) 1713], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by respondent No.3-Insurance Company in the bank accounts of the claimant-appellants within a period of six weeks from today. The share of the minor claimantappellants shall be kept in an FDR fetching maximum rate of interest with a nationalized bank. The particulars of the bank accounts along with the requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimantappellants to respondent No.3-Insurance company within a period of two weeks from today and needful shall be done by respondent No.3-Insurance Company after verification thereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along with up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

11.

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 28.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No