Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad sts

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,A

BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

......Appellant

vs.

SHILPA JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS

......Respondents

NTCT(yTSim0'sit’5t.5. .)

1(m0mV09TSim0'sit)5 t5. .8

K*bm2STSim0'sit85 t5. .8

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. Punit Jain, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. M.K. Mittal, Advocate

for respondent No.1 to 4.

Ms. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate

for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent No.5.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

22.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for

short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant insurance company was held

liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of

Rs.64,87,743/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum, on the ground of

quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad s.s

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.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIE S

3. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant-Insurance   Company

vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the

higher side. 

4. He   further   contends   that   the   learned   tribunal   has  erred   in

considering the income tax returns of 2014-2015 for the calculation of income

of the deceased as the same was filed after the death of Aadish Jain, therefore,

this ITR should not have been considered and average should be taken from

the previous ITRs.

5. He   further   contends   that   the   learned  Tribunal   has  erred   in

calculating the income of the deceased, as it has considered the gross income

without deducting income tax, contrary to the settled position of law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.

6. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in adding

50% to the income of the deceased as future prospects instead of 40%.

7. He   further   contends   that   the   learned  Tribunal   has  erred   in

considering parents of the deceased as dependent upon him.  Accordingly, he

prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be

reduced as per latest law. 

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-claimants contends

that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the

same is liable to be enhanced.

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad sns

9. He further points out that the claimants have already filed a

separate appeal, being FAO-3468-2017, titled as “Shilpa Jain (since deceased)

through her LRs Vs. Inderjeet Jain and others”, challenging the quantum of

compensation   awarded   by   the   Tribunal   and   seeking   its   enhancement.

Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the present appeal.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

11. 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,

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.

Sarl Vemls.VDhirTnpo lml

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.

* * * * * *

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad s)s

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.

12. 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;

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for

different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed

salary. 

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad s8s

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

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,

Sarl Vemls.VDhirTnpo lDl

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

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad s:s

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.”

13.  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

of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a

compendious term which encompasses "spousal

Sarl Vemls.VDhirTnpo l,l

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

Sarl Vemls.VDhirTnpo lV.l

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.

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad stts

14. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was 28 years old

at the time of the accident, he was stated to be running two readymade

garment   showrooms,   earning   four   lakhs   per   annum.  According   to   the

contention of the appellant-insurance company, the learner Tribunal has erred

in calculation of the income of the deceased by placing reliance on the income

tax returns of 2014-15 because the same was filed after the death of Adish

Jain. However, this contention does not hold any merit in the eyes of law. It is

trite that the return placed on record shall not be rejected only on the ground

that it was submitted after the date of the accident. This view was recently

reiterated in the judgment of  Nidhi Bhargava versus national insurance

Company Limited 2025 SCC online SC 872 the relevant paragraph of the

same is reproduced as under:

“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

Sarl Vemls.VDhirTnpo lVsl

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

Sarl Vemls.VDhirTnpo lV l

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

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad stMs

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

circumstances. ”

15. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly relied upon the ITR of 2014-

2015, for the calculation of income of the deceased.

16. Adverting   to   the   next   contention   of   the   appellant-insurance

company, the submission that income tax is required to be deducted from the

gross income of the deceased, deserves acceptance in the eyes of law. It is

well settled that while determining compensation, the gross income after

deduction of income tax alone is to be taken into consideration. In  Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court categorically held that the income of the deceased must be

assessed after deducting the payable income tax. This principle was further

reiterated in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476, wherein it was

held that where the income of the deceased falls within the taxable bracket,

deduction of income tax is mandatory.

17. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:

“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

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad st)s

“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.”

18. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is required to be

computed   after   deduction   of   the   income   tax   and   is   thus   assessed   at

₹nI.uI’:nxs (3,32,692 - 4,709) per annum. Therefore, monthly income of the

deceased is reassessed as NC5.uInn.xs.

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

has erred in adding 50% as future prospect to the income of the deceased.

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad st8s

Since the deceased was self-employed, therefore, as per the settled law, 40%

is to be added as future prospects. 

20. Further, perusal of the award reveals that the learned tribunal has

deducted 1/4 towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, considering

his wife, two children and his parents as dependent of him at the time of his

death. As per the contention of the respondent, the parents of the deceased

were not dependent upon him. Therefore 1/3rd has to be deducted as personal

expenditure. This contention is contrary to the settled position of law. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently recognised that the loss of a family

member in a motor accident is an unfathomable tragedy not only for the

parents. The anguish, grief and emotional trauma suffered by parents are

profound and enduring, often defying adequate articulation. No amount of

compensation can truly redress the emotional void caused by such a loss.

Since there is no record to show that the parents of the deceased were not

dependent upon him at the time of his death, the learned tribunal has rightly

deducted, 1/4th as personal expenditure.

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

has granted meager amount under the head of loss of consortium, therefore,

the same is liable to be enhanced.

22. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The award

dated 22.12.2016 is modified accordingly. The respondents-claimants are

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

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income Rs.27,332/-

2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.10,933/-/- (40% of 27332)

3 Deduction   towards   personal

expenditure 1/4th 

Rs.9,566/- (38265 X 1/4th)

Presnt:Ms. tuiJea,Ad stus

4 Total Income  Rs.28,699/- (38265-9566)

5 Multiplier  17

6 Annual Dependency  Rs.58,54,596/- (28699 X 12 X 17)

7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

8 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-

9 Loss of Consortium

Parental  : 2 x 48,400

Spousal   : 1 x 48,400

Filial       : 2 x 48,400

Rs.2,42,000/-

10cm62bilm3*T0C26qm0 NC58tIn’IuM8xs

11 Amount Awarded by the 

Tribunal

Rs. 64,87,743xs

12h0L209TSi23mV06 NC5nIMuI’’uxsiJ 64,87,743s61,39,746)

23. 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 respondents-claimants

are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the modified amount from the

date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

24. The  appellant-Insurance  Company  is  directed  to  deposit  the

modified amount along with interest 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 modified amount of compensation along with interest

to the respondents-claimants.

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

15.01.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

Ayub JUDGE

    Whether speaking/non-speaking :   Yes/No

 Whether reportable   :  Yes