FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [1]

FAO-1352-2024       

117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1.     FAO-1487-2024

Date of decision: 01.10.2025

Santosh and others

...Appellants

Versus

Papinder @ Pushpender (deceased) through his LRs and others

       ...Respondents

2.     FAO-1438-2024

Date of decision: 01.10.2025

Sanjay Kumar

...Appellant

Versus

Papinder @ Pushpender (deceased) through his LRs and others

       ...Respondents

3.     FAO-1352-2024

Date of decision: 01.10.2025

Aditi minor through her mother being natural guardian Smt. Poonam

...Appellant

Versus

Papinder @ Pushpender (deceased) through his LRs and others

       ...Respondents

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate and

Mr. Ankush Duhan, Advocate and 

Mr. Virender Ahlawat, Advocate for the appellants.

(In all the cases)

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

(In all the cases)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present order would dispose of three appeals. First appeal

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [2]

FAO-1352-2024       

being FAO-1487-2024 which has been filed by widow and two daughters of

deceased Rajender Kumar who had died in a motor vehicular accident which

had taken place on 08.02.2019. Prayer has been made by the claimants for

enhancement of the amount of compensation and thus, challenge has been

made to the award dated 05.01.2023 with respect to MACP-519-2019 to the

said   extent.   FAO-1438-2024   has   been   filed   by   the   injured-Sanjay

Kumar/claimant also seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

Common award dated 05.01.2023 passed in MACP-517-2019 has also been

challenged to the said extent in the present appeal. FAO-1352-2024 has been

filed by the injured/claimant/Aditi in which also prayer for enhancement of

the amount of compensation has been made and challenge has been made to

the said extent to the common award dated 05.01.2023 vide which MACP-

518-2019 filed by Aditi has been decided. 

2. In all the three said cases, the only issue which requires to be

adjudicated is as to whether the appellants are entitled to any additional

amount of compensation or not. Other aspects have not been disputed before

this Court. 

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that with

respect to the death of Rajender Kumar, the Tribunal has granted total

amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,55,000/- which amount is on the

lesser side. It is submitted that on account of loss of consortium, only an

amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded whereas there are three claimants

and thus, a total amount of Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48000/- x 3) should have been

granted on account of loss of consortium. It is further submitted that on

account of loss of estate, nothing has been awarded and on account of funeral

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [3]

FAO-1352-2024       

expenses, only an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded and the amounts

on accounts of loss of estate and funeral expenses should have been awarded

to the extent of Rs.18,500/- each. It is submitted that thus, an additional

amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,336/- should be awarded to

the appellants in FAO-1487-2024. It is further prayed that the said additional

amount of compensation be awarded to the appellants along with interest at

the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its

realisation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that with

respect   to   FAO-1438-2024,   compensation   awarded   to   Sanjay

Kumar/appellant/claimant  for  injuries  suffered by  him to the  extent of

Rs.9,60,000/- is also on the lesser side, inasmuch as, loss of income has been

provided for a period of four months whereas the same should be provided

for a period of six months in view of the injuries suffered. It is submitted that

on account of pain and suffering, only an amount of Rs.1 lac has been

awarded whereas the appellant should have been awarded Rs.2 lacs on the

said count. It is further argued that two operations were performed on the

appellant and only an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded whereas

amount of Rs.50,000/- should have been awarded on the said aspect. It is

further pointed out that even the amounts on accounts of attendant charges

and special diet to the tune of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5166/- respectively are on

the lesser side and thus, amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively

on each of the two aspects should be awarded. It is further submitted that

nothing has been awarded on account of transportation, whereas appellant-

Sanjay   Kumar   had   incurred   expenses   of   Rs.20,000/-   on   account   of

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [4]

FAO-1352-2024       

transportation and thus, Rs.20,000/- should have been awarded on account of

transportation.   It   is   further   prayed   that   the   additional   amount   of

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,26,834/- should be awarded to the appellant

along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition till its realisation.

5. With respect to claim in FAO-1352-2024, learned counsel for

the appellant has argued that total amount of compensation awarded to Aditi

for the injuries suffered by her is Rs.80,000/- which amount is also highly

inadequate. It is submitted that in the case of appellant-Aditi, no benefit of

loss of income has been given and thus, at least four months benefit on loss

of income should be given. It is argued that on account of pain and suffering,

only an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded whereas the appellant is

entitled to Rs.80,000/- on the said account. It is submitted that on accounts of

expenses   on   operation,   attendant   charges   and   special   diet,   amounts   of

Rs.10,000/-,   Rs.8000/-   and   Rs.9170/-   respectively   have   been   awarded

whereas in each of the said aspects, an amount of Rs.20,000/- should have

been awarded to the claimant. It is further prayed that the additional amount

of  compensation to the tune of  Rs.62,000/- should be awarded to the

appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his arguments,

has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases

titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [5]

FAO-1352-2024       

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru

Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

has opposed the enhancement as claimed by all the appellants. With respect

to the case of Sanjay Kumar, it has been submitted that loss of income has

been correctly considered by the Tribunal for a period of four months and

there is nothing to show that loss of income should be considered for a period

of six months. It is submitted that even the amount of Rs.2 lacs claimed on

account of pain and suffering by the appellant-Sanjay Kumar is highly

excessive and the highest amount that can be awarded regarding the same is

Rs.1,50,000/-. It is argued that the amount claimed on account of expenses

incurred in operation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is highly excessive and the

Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- on the said account.

8. With respect to  the case of  Aditi, learned counsel for  the

Insurance Company has pointed out that no benefit of loss of income is to be

given to the said Aditi and the claim made by the appellant on the said

account is baseless. It is submitted that since the present appellant has already

claimed amounts on accounts of attendant charges, pain and sufferings etc.,

thus, the amount as awarded by the Tribunal with respect to special diet is

adequate and is in accordance with law.

9. It is further submitted that the rate of interest which is sought to

be charged by all the appellants i.e., 9% per annum is highly excessive and

the highest rate of interest that can be awarded on the additional amounts of

compensation is at best 6% per annum. 

10. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,   after   taking  into

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [6]

FAO-1352-2024       

consideration the objections raised on behalf of the Insurance Company, has

submitted the revised charts in all the three cases, which are reproduced

hereinbelow:-

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG ARH.

F.A.O. NO. 1487 OF 2024

SANTOSH AND OTHERS Appellants

V/S

PAPINDER @ PUSHPENDER AND OTHERS ......Respondents

Name of Deceased Rajender Kumar

Date of accident 08.02.2019

Age 60years

Occupation Tailor

Appellants: 3 (widow and 2 daughters)

MACP No. 519 of 2019

Sr. No. Heads of claim Tribunal Proposal At

Hon'ble High

court

1. Income (P.M) 8830/>p.m. 8830/>p.m.

2 Add 10% of increase (P.A.) 10% 10%

3. Deduction 1/3rd 1/3rd

4. Total Annual Income after

deduction and adding future

p.a.

77704*9=699,33

6/>

77704*9=699,33

6/>

5. Multiplier 9 9

7. Loss of Consortium 40000 144000/>

(3members)

8. Loss of estate Nil 18,500/>

9. Funeral Expenses 15,000/> 18,500/>

10 Total 755000/> 880,336/>

Difference Rs.125336/>

Chandigarh Sd/> Sudhir Rana

Date>01.10.2025 Advocate

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [7]

FAO-1352-2024       

Counsel for the appellants”

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG ARH.

F.A.O. NO. 1438 OF 2024

SANJAY KUMAR Appellant

V/S

PAPINDER @ PUSHPENDER AND OTHERS ......Respondents

Name of Injured Sanjay Kumar

Date of accident 08.02.2019

Age 42 years

Occupation Tailor

Appellants: Injured>Sanjay Kumar

MACP No. 517 of 2019

Sr. No. Heads of claim Tribunal Proposal At

Hon'ble High

court

1. Income (P.M) 8830/>p.m. 8830/>p.m.

2 Loss of income 8830*4=35320 8830*4=35320

3. Medical Bills 791514/> 791514/>

4. Pain and Suffering 100000/> 150000/>

5. On account of 2 operation 20000/> 20000/>

8 Attendant Charges 8000/> 50000/>

9. Special Diet 5166 20000/>

10. Transportation Nil 20000/>

11. Total 960000/> 1086834/>

Difference Rs.126834/>

Chandigarh Sd/> Sudhir Rana

Date>01.10.2025 Advocate

Counsel for the appellants”

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG ARH.

F.A.O. NO. 1352 OF 2024

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [8]

FAO-1352-2024       

ADITI Appellant

V/S

PAPINDER @ PUSHPENDER AND OTHERS ......Respondents

Name of Injured Aditi

Date of accident 08.02.2019

Age 10 years

Occupation Student

Appellants: Injured>Aditi

MACP No. 518 of 2019

Sr. No. Heads of claim Tribunal Proposal At

Hon'ble High

court

1. Income (P.M) Nil Nil

2 Loss of income Nil Nil

3. Medical Bills 12830/> 12830/>

4. Pain and Suffering 40000/> 80000/>

5. On account of operation 10000/> 20000/>

8 Attendant Charges 8000/> 20000/>

9. Special Diet 9170 9170/>

10. Total 80000/> 142000/>

Difference Rs.62000/>

Chandigarh Sd/> Sudhir Rana

Date>01.10.2025 Advocate

Counsel for the appellants”

11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book and has also considered the said revised charts and

the same have been found to be in accordance with law and the amount as

sought in the said charts deserve to be granted to the appellants. The said

charts take into consideration the objections raised by learned counsel for the

Insurance Company.

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [9]

FAO-1352-2024       

12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 42 of Sarla Verma’s case

(Supra) had observed as under:-

“We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should

be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by

applying Susamma Thomas, 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.”

13. A perusal of the above would show that for the age of 60 years,

multiplier of 9 is to be applied.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra), has

held as under:-

“59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our

conclusions:>

59.1 The two>Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been

well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was

taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla

Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a

coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary

view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma

Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the

decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

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

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [10]

FAO-1352-2024       

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 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 paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we

have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the

Table   in   Sarla   Verma   read   with   paragraph   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.

60. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed

before the appropriate Bench.”

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in   Magma General Insurance

Company Limited’s case (Supra) had further observed that in death case,

under the head of loss of consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled

to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium,

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [11]

FAO-1352-2024       

children   are   entitled   to   parental   consortium.   To   the   widow,   spousal

consortium   is   to   be   given.   Relevant   portion   of   the  said   judgment   is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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 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,co>operation, 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 recognized that the value of a

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [12]

FAO-1352-2024       

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 5.

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 Sethi (supra). 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.”

16. In the abovesaid judgment, a specific amount was awarded to

the father and sister of the deceased and thus, the amount of consortium

awarded   was   made   dependent   upon   the   number   of   claimants/legal

representatives.

17. Rajender Kumar was 60 years of age at the time of accident and

his widow and two daughters who have filed FAO-1487-2024 are rightly

entitled to amounts of compensation on account of loss of consortium to the

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [13]

FAO-1352-2024       

tune of Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3) and loss of estate and funeral

expenses to the extent of Rs.18,500/- each and thus, they are entitled to an

additional amount of Rs.1,25,336/- in accordance with the settled law. The

amount claimed in FAO-1438-2024 with respect to the injuries suffered by

Sanjay Kumar, who is stated to be 42 years of age, is also reasonable and in

accordance with the settled law. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,26,834/- deserves

to be awarded as an additional amount of compensation to said Sanjay

Kumar. Even the revised chart submitted with respect to Aditi-injured who

has   filed   FAO-1352-2024   is   in   accordance   with   law   and   takes   into

consideration the objections raised by learned counsel for the Insurance

Company and the amount claimed is reasonable and in accordance with law

and thus, an additional amount of compensation of Rs.62,000/- deserves to be

awarded to the said Aditi. With respect to the rate of interest, this Court is

consistently awarding rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which

rate of interest is also reasonable in the present case.

18. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

present appeals are partly allowed and the award dated 05.01.2023 is suitably

modified and the appellants/claimants in FAO-1487-2024 are held entitled to

an amount of compensation of Rs.1,25,336/-, appellant-Sanjay Kumar in

FAO-1438-2024   is   held   entitled   to   the   amount   of   compensation   of

Rs.1,26,834/- and appellant-Aditi in FAO-1352-2024 is held entitled to

additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.62,000/-. The said

additional amounts of compensation would be released to the appellants

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of

the claim petition till its realisation within a period of six weeks from today

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [14]

FAO-1352-2024       

but the same would exclude the period of 321 days in FAO-1487-2024, 314

days in FAO-1438-2024 and 322 days in FAO-1352-2024 as at the time of

issuance of notice of motion, while condoning the said delays, it was

observed that the appellants would not be entitled to claim interest for the

said period. Order dated 25.09.2025 passed in FAO-1487-2024 is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

“CM-5764-CII-2024

Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 321 days in filing the

present appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicants>appellants has

submitted that for the period of 321 days, the appellants would

not claim any interest and has prayed that the said delay be

condoned.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is

duly supported by an affidavit as well as on account of the fair

statement made on behalf of the appellants, present application

is allowed and the delay of 321 days in filing the present appeal

is hereby condoned.

As stated before this Court, the appellants would not

claim interest for the said period of 321 days.

Main case

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in

the present case, enhancement is sought on the specific

grounds.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate appears and accepts notice on

behalf of respondent No.3>Insurance Company and prays for an

adjournment to get instructions in the matter.

Adjourned to 29.09.2025.

To be taken up immediately after the urgent list.

FAO-1487-2024,

FAO-1438-2024 & [15]

FAO-1352-2024       

25.09.2025”

19. Similar orders were passed in other cases also.

20. It has been pointed out that Aditi is still a minor and thus, the

additional amount to which the said Aditi has been held entitled to would be

paid to her through her mother being natural guardian namely Smt. Poonam.

Ordered accordingly.

21. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

01.10.2025 (VIKAS BAHL)

Pawan                  JUDGE 

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:- Yes/No