Rajiya And ORS v. Naseem Jia And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.01.2026 Rajiya & Ors ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Naseem Zia & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) CM-23060-CII-2024 1.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. FAO-6066-2024 2.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') vide the impugned award dated 25.04.2024 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17.08.2022.

3.

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity. 4.

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income ₹7,000/- Annual Income ₹84,000/- [₹7,000 x 12] Future Prospects - 40% ₹1,17,600/- [₹84,000 + ₹33,600] Deduction - 1/3rd ₹78,400/- [₹1,17,600 - ₹39,200] Multiplier - 17 ₹13,32,800/- [₹78,400 x 17] Loss of estate ₹16,500/- Funeral expenses ₹16,500/- Loss of consortium ₹44,000/- Total Compensation ₹14,09,800/- Interest 7% 5.

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that he does not challenge the income, deduction, future prospects and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' is 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].

6.

Per contra, 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.

7.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8.

Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, future prospects, deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and under the head 'loss of consortium' is not as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimants (widow, minor son and parents of the deceased) would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under : Sr.No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income ₹7,000/- Annual Income ₹84,000/- [₹7,000 x 12] Deduction - 1/3rd ₹56,000/- [₹84,000 - ₹28,000] Future Prospects - 40% ₹78,400/- [₹56,000 + ₹22,400] Multiplier - 17 ₹13,32,800/- [₹78,400 x 17] Loss of estate ₹18,000/- Funeral expenses ₹18,000/- Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 1] ₹48,000/- (ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 2] ₹96,000/- (iii) Spousal ₹48,000/- (Total ₹1,92,000/-) Total Compensation ₹15,60,800/- 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. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal.

10.

In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the direction of the Tribunal and the share of the minor claimant shall be kept in fixed deposits by the Bank concerned. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter alongwith 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 stands modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 12.01.2026 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO