FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M)

AMARJIT KAUR & ORS.

......Appellants

vs.

BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS.

......Respondents

Reserved on:- 04.02.2025

Pronounced on:- 09.02.2026

Uploaded on :- 09.02.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

12.03.2009 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.6,51,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum,

on account of death of Baldev Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred

on 13.11.2006.

2. 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.

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -2-

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. 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 respondent No.3, 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, they 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.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

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. 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,

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -3-

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.

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

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -4-

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.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

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

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -5-

(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. 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

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -6-

sums. It seems to us that 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 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

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -7-

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 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.”

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:-

“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

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -8-

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, 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.

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -9-

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

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

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -10-

to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an

amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was

stated to be 35 years of age at the time of the accident, which fact stands duly

proved from the MLR Ex.C8  of the deceased, however, the learned tribunal

erred in calculating the age of the deceased as 36 years.

10. It is settled proposition of law as held by 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:-

“11. The amount arrived at by the High Court of the

monthly income being Rs.5,819/- (Rupees Five Thousand

Eight Hundred and Nineteen) as against the claim of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears to be on the

lower side as the total earning of the deceased from family

pension itself ought to have been considered which itself

would come to Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One

Hundred and Thirty-Seven) to which the notional wages as

a home maker had to be added, which we find is

reasonable as has been taken by the High Court at

Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). Thus,

the monthly income would come to Rs.7,637/- (Rupees

Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Seven), which we

are inclined to round off at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven

Thousand) Coming to the multiplier factor which is

dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the

deceased was aged about 45 years as per the Post-Mortem

Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the

deceased. The purported discrepancy in the age with

regard to that of the claimant and the deceased is

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -11-

erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed,

appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of

15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-

law cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality given the

contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the

time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at

least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the

1970s. Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to

the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of

the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are

inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking

her age as 45 years. With regard to the loss of love and

affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs.40,000/- (Rupees

Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every

three years for loss of consortium which has been

interpreted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu

Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include spousal, parental, and

filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the

amount shall be [Rs.48,000/- x 5] which comes to

Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand)

payable under the head of loss of love and affection.”

11. In view of the above, referred to judgment, the age of deceased

Baldev Singh is ascertained as 35 years at the time of accident.

12. Further perusal of the award shows that the appellants/claimants

had deposed before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a  by

profession running the business of Milk dairy under the name of Punjab Milk

Dairy in Tripuri town Patiala and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. However,

no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said income. In

the absence of such proof, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income

₹of the deceased at 4,000 per month.

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -12-

13. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kubrabibi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others,

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697, has held that in cases where compensation is sought

and there is no definite proof of income, particularly when the deceased

belongs to the unorganised sector, the social status, nature of work, and

overall circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. Strict

proof of income is not mandatory in such circumstances, and a reasonable

notional income is required to be assessed.

14. The relevant paras of Kubrabibi’s case (supra) are extracted as

under:-

“It is unfortunate that in a case of the present nature, the

High Court while assessing the evidence available on

record, has sought to seek strict evidence with regard to

the income of the deceased. When the wife and children of

the deceased were before the Court, they would not be in a

position to secure all evidence when the deceased earning

member was not in secure job. Despite the same we note

that in the instant case, a perusal of the judgment and

award passed by the MACT, would indicate that an effort

was made to examine the owner of the two wheeler repair

shop where the deceased was said to be working. The High

Court has discarded the same on the ground that no

documents, to 2 indicate that he is the owner of the shop

and he had employed three persons, has been produced.

In a matter of the present nature where the

compensation is sought and even in the absence of definite

proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to

be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in

unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is

required to be taken into consideration. The fact that the

deceased had three dependents to be cared for and had

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -13-

claimed that he was working as a mechanic, the amount

payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis and in

that circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily

income at Rs.200/- per day in any event could have been

taken even if the income from jeep transport business was

discarded for want of documents. More so in a

circumstance, where the MACT had referred to the

evidence available on record and then arrived at its

conclusion, the re-appreciation of evidence by the High

Court is without being sensitive to nature of lis before it.”

15. In the present case, the deceased was  35 years old , stated to be 

running the business of milk dairy and had 5 dependents to support.

Considering the nature of employment, age, social background, and

prevailing wages at the relevant time, this Court is of the view that the learned

Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 4000,

which is on the lower side. In view of the overall circumstances, the monthly

₹income of the deceased is reasonably assessed at 9000/- per month.

16. The learned Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.1,24,000/- and

further awarded Rs.3100/- as spent upon medical test by pursuing Ex.C3 to

Ex.C23, therefore, not require the interference of the Court.

17. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal

committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses,

whereas, considering the age of the deceased and the number of dependents.

Deduction of 1/4 should have been made in accordance with the settled

principles of law.

18. Additionally, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any amount

towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), and subsequent

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -14-

judgments. The claimants are therefore entitled to addition towards future

prospects.

19. Moreover, no amount was awarded under the conventional heads

of loss of estate and loss of consortium and also meager amount awarded

under the heads of Funeral Expenses. Therefore, award require indulgence of

this Court.

CONCLUSION

20. 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 12.03.2009 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are

entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income Rs.9,000/-

2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.3,600/- (40% of 9000)

3 Deduction towards personal

expenditure 1/4

Rs.3,150/- (12600 X 1/4)

4 Total Income Rs.9,450/- (12600-3150)

5 Multiplier 16

6 Annual Dependency Rs.18,14,400/- (9450 X 12 X 16)

7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

9 Loss of Consortium

Parental : 2 x 40,000

Spousal : 1 x 40,000

Filial : 2 x 40,000

Rs.2,00,000/-

10 Motorcycle repair Rs.5,000/-

11 Medical expenses Rs.1,27,100/-

12Total Rs.21,76,500/-

13Deduction

Amount Awarded by the Tribunal

Rs.6,51,000/-

14Enhanced amount Rs.15,25,500/- (21,76,500- 6,51,000)

FAO-3232-2009 (O&M) -15-

21. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma

2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport

Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, 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.

22. 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 12.03.2009.

The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to

the Tribunal.

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

09.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

Ayub/Saahil JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes