As per case facts, the widow and two minor children of Musleen Khan, who died in a motor vehicle accident, appealed the MACT award for compensation enhancement. They sought higher ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
FAO-3874-2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
1. FAO-3874-2019
Reena and others
... Appellants
Versus
Vishal and others
... Respondents
2. FAO-3876-2019
Baljinder Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
... Appellant
Versus
Vishal and others
... Respondents
Date of decision : 06.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Navmohit Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. The present order shall dispose of two FAOs, i.e., FAO-3874-
2019 and FAO-3876-2019 as both the first appeals have been filed against
FAO-3874-2019 2
the same award dated 02.11.2018 and in both the cases, prayer is for
enhancement of compensation.
2. FAO-3874-2019 has been filed by the widow and two minor
children of deceased Musleen Khan, who had died in a motor vehicle
accident on 10.03.2017. The claimants-appellants had filed MACT petition
no.206 of 2017 in which compensation awarded to the appellants was
Rs.44,88,775/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
3. FAO-3876-2019 is being pursued by the widow and minor
daughter of deceased Baljinder Singh. Initially Baljinder Singh through his
wife had filed the MACT petition no.272 of 2017 with respect to injuries
suffered by said Baljidner Singh in the motor vehicular accident which took
place on 10.03.2017 and subsequently after the death of Baljinder Singh, the
claim petition was amended to seek compensation for his death. In the said
case, compensation awarded to the appellants was Rs.21,02,331/- along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
4. The only issue which arises in the present two appeals is
whether the appellants in both the cases are entitled to enhanced
compensation or not as other aspects have not been disputed before this
Court.
FAO-3874-2019
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as far as
FAO-3874-2019 is concerned, the appellants are entitled to consortium for
all three claimants as all of them were dependant upon the deceased-
FAO-3874-2019 3
Musleen Khan and an amount of Rs.48,000/- each was required to be
awarded on the said account, whereas the Tribunal had awarded only an
amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the wife of the deceased. It is further submitted
that on accounts of loss of estate and funeral expenses, only an amount of
Rs.15,000/- each had been awarded by the Tribunal, whereas as per settled
law, the appellants are required to be awarded Rs.18,000/- each and thus on
the said accounts, the present appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of
Rs.1,10,000/-. It is further submitted that the additional amount of
compensation be awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants 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
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted a chart in
FAO-3874-2019, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“FAO/3874/2019 ENHANCEMENT CLAIMED
INCOME - 22,732
AGE - 36
(MULTIPLIER) (15)
DEDUCTION - ¼
FUTURE PROSPECT 50%
44,18,775
CONSORTIUM TO WIFE – 40,000 CONSORTIUM TO WIFE – 48,000
FAO-3874-2019 4
LOSS OF ESTATE -15,000 PARENTAL CONSORTIUM- 48,000
TO MINOR CHILD
FUNERAL EXPENSES- 15,000 -DO- - 48,000
70,000 LOSS OF ESTATE - 18,000
FUNERAL -18,000
1,80,000
TOTAL 44,88,775 TOTAL ENHANCEMENT 1,10,000”
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has
submitted that the interest sought on the additional amount at the rate of 9%
per annum is highly excessive and the highest rate of interest which can be
granted to the present appellants for the enhanced compensation is 6% per
annum. It is further pointed out that there was a delay of 82 days in filing
the appeal and as per order dated 29.10.2025, while condoning the delay,
the appellants had stated that they would not claim interest for the said
period. The order dated 29.10.2025 which has been highlighted by the
learned counsel for respondent no.3, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present:- Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
***
CM-13221-CII-2019 in FAO-3874-2019 and
CM-13226-CII-2019 in FAO-3876-2019
Present applications have been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing the present
appeals.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that for
the period of 82 days, the appellants would not claim any interest and has
prayed that the said delay be condoned.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications, which are
duly supported by affidavits as well as on account of the fair statement
FAO-3874-2019 5
made on behalf of the appellants, the present applications are allowed and
the delay of 82 days in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned.
As stated before this Court, the appellants would not claim
interest for the said period of 82 days.
FAO-3874-2019 and
FAO-3876-2019
Inter alia, contends that in the present set of cases, the only
claim made by the claimants is with respect to consortium.
At this stage, notice of motion be issued to respondent No.3
only.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.3.
Adjourned to 06.11.2025.
To be shown in the urgent list.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
October 29, 2025”
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has further argued that in
the present case, the Tribunal had even awarded the benefit of 50% while
calculating future prospects although it cannot be stated that the deceased
Musleen Khan had any permanent job. It is submitted that on the said
aspect, maximum 40% for future prospects should have been awarded and
thus, the said amount deserves to be reduced.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants, in rebuttal, has submitted
that as is apparent from paragraph 45 of the award of the Tribunal, the
Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was a Shift
Engineer in Property and Assessed Manager, Mohali and was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month and also was a diploma holder in Electrical
Engineering and further PW-7 Rajeev Guleria who was Facility Engineer,
FAO-3874-2019 6
Jones Lang Lasalle, Building Operations Pvt. Ltd. Mohali, had brought the
salary and service record of Musleen Khan which showed that the deceased
was employed in the company as Shift Engineer since 21.04.2014 and had
been regularly working since then. It is further submitted that from the said
documents and evidence, it is apparent that the deceased was doing a
permanent job and thus, the benefit of 50% of actual salary in determining
future prospects had been rightly awarded. It is also submitted that the said
finding is not perverse and is in accordance with law. It is submitted that the
award was passed in the year 2018 and no cross appeal has been filed by the
insurance company and thus, the arguments raised by the learned counsel
for respondent no.3-insurance company deserves to be rejected.
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book and has also considered the said chart and the same
has been found to be in accordance with law.
11. 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
FAO-3874-2019 7
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.”
A perusal of the above would show that for the age of 36 years,
multiplier of 15 is to be applied.
12. 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 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.
FAO-3874-2019 8
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.”
A perusal of the above judgment would show that it was
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that addition of some percentage of
the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was
also required to be taken into consideration and the said percentage was
specifically defined with respect to persons who were having a permanent
job or/were self-employed.
FAO-3874-2019 9
13. 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,
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
FAO-3874-2019 10
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
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
FAO-3874-2019 11
the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of
Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.”
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.
14. The chart produced by the learned counsel for the appellants is
in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. There are three claimants
in the present case i.e., wife and two minor children and they were all
dependant upon the deceased and thus, as per settled law, an amount of Rs.
48,000/- each was required to be awarded on account of loss of consortium,
whereas the Tribunal had only awarded Rs.40,000/- on the said count. Even
on accounts of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amount awarded by
the Tribunal is Rs.15,000/- each whereas as per settled law, the amount that
is required to be paid to the appellants is Rs.18,000/- each and thus, the
present appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,10,000/-.
With respect to the rate of interest, this Court is consistently awarding the
rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which rate of interest is also
reasonable in the present case.
15. The objection raised on behalf of respondent no.3-insurance
company to the effect that grant of benefit of 50% of actual salary for future
prospects is not in accordance with law, deserves to be rejected. It would be
relevant to note that the present award was passed on 02.11.2018 granting
FAO-3874-2019 12
the said benefit to the appellants and no cross appeal has been filed by the
insurance company. The Tribunal had minutely considered the documents
on record and had given the said benefit. Paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of the
award which are relevant for consideration, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“45. PW2 Reena stated that deceased Musleen was Shift
Engineer in Property and Assessed Manager, Mohali, earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. As per Ex.P104 and Ex.P102 he was
diploma holder in Electrical engineering. PW-7 Rajeev
Guleria, Facility Engineer, Jones Lang Lasalle, Building
Operations Pvt. Ltd. Mohali brought the salary and service
record of Musleen Khan and stated that deceased Musleen
Khan was employed as Shift Engineer in their company since
21.4.2014; that he was getting gross salary of Rs.22,732/- and
his net carry home salary was Rs.21,407/- after deduction of
provident fund of Rs.1320/- and welfare fund Rs.05/-. He
proved salary slips Ex.P87 to Ex.P89 of deceased for the
months January to March 2017 and annual salary certificate
Ex.P90. In view of Manasvi Jain vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, 2014 (3) PLR 528 (P&H); Harbhajan Kaur vs.
State of Haryana, 2009 (1) PLR 203 (P&H); Raghubir Singh
Matolya and others vs. Hari Singh Malviya and others, 2009
ACJ 1580 (SC) and Anand Bahadur Singh and another vs.
Kamta Prasad Vishwakarma and another, 2009 ACJ 1583
(M.P.) no deduction is to be made from the salary towards
GPF, life insurance premium, repayment of loan, house rent,
CCA, bonus, Dearness Allowance, conv. allowance, medical
etc. Monthly gross salary of the deceased as per Ex.P87 to
Ex.P89 was under:-
Ex.P87 (for the month of January 2017) : Rs.22,732/-
FAO-3874-2019 13
Ex.P88 (for the month of February 2017) : Rs.22,732/-
Ex.P89 (for the month of January 2017) : Rs.7,332/- (for ten
days only).
Relevant salary last drawn by the deceased is of the
month of February 2017. Thus, the monthly income of deceased
is assessed at Rs.22,732/-, which comes to Rs.2,72,784/- per
annum.
46. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
and others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014,
decided on 31.10.2017, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
as under:-
"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."
47. Making an addition of 50% in the income of deceased,
monthly income of deceased comes to Rs.34,098/-. The annual
income thus, works out to Rs.4,09,176/- (Rs.34,098 x 12). After
deducting income tax of Rs.16,396/-, the total annual income of
deceased comes to Rs.3,92,780/- per annum.”
A perusal of the above would show that it was duly proved on
record that the deceased Musleen Khan was a Shift Engineer in Property
FAO-3874-2019 14
and Assessed Management, Mohali and was earning a handsome salary and
was even proved to be a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering and
documents proving the said fact were duly exhibited. Importantly PW-7
Rajiv Guleria, who was stated to be Facility Engineer, Jones Lang Lasalle,
Building Operations Pvt.Ltd. Mohali, had brought the salary and service
record of the deceased Musleen Khan and had proved on record that the
deceased was employed as Shift Engineer in their company since
21.04.2014 and had also proved the salary slips Ex.P87 to Ex.P89 and the
annual salary certificate Ex.P90 and also the fact that the deceased was
getting gross salary of Rs.22,732/- and his net carry home salary was
Rs.21,407/-. The accident had taken place on 10.03.2017 and thus, it is
apparent that from April, 2014 till March 2017, the deceased was working
as Shift Engineer. The finding on the said aspect has not been shown to be
perverse or illegal or against the record. In the said circumstances, it cannot
be said that the deceased was not having a permanent job and thus, the
Tribunal had rightly, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi and others (supra), granted an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased while determining the amount on account of future
prospects. The said finding does not call for any interference and deserves
to be upheld and is accordingly upheld.
FAO-3876-2019
16. As has been stated hereinabove, in the present case, the only
FAO-3874-2019 15
issue is regarding the payment of additional compensation.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the
present case, the amount awarded on account of loss of consortium to the
extent of Rs.40,000/- is on the lower side, inasmuch as, there are two
claimants i.e., wife and minor child who were dependant upon the deceased
and thus, an amount of Rs.48,000/- each was required to be awarded on the
account of loss of consortium to both the claimants. It is submitted that even
on accounts of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amounts which have
been awarded are on the lesser side, whereas the amount that should have
been awarded on both the said counts is Rs.18,000/- each. The chart
prepared by the learned counsel for the appellants is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“FAO/3876/2019 ENHANCEMENT CLAIMED
INCOME - 8300
AGE - 30
(MULTIPLIER) (16)
DEDUCTION - ¼
FUTURE PROSPECT 40%
16,73,280
MEDICAL BILL - 3,59,051
CONSORTIUM TO WIFE – 40,000 CONSORTIUM TO WIFE – 48,000
PARENTAL CONSORTIUM- 48,000
TO MINOR CHILD
LOSS OF ESTATE -15,000 LOSS OF ESTATE - 18,000
FUNERAL - 15,000 FUNERAL 18,000
TOTAL 21,02,231 1,32,000
TOTAL ENHANCEMENT 62,000”
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
FAO-3874-2019 16
appellants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.62,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
19. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has
referred to the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court, vide which
notice of motion was issued and has highlighted the fact that since there was
a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal, thus, as per the statement made at the
time of condoning the delay, the interest for the above said period of 82
days is not to be given to the appellants. It is further submitted that the
interest sought at the rate of 9% per annum for the enhanced compensation
is highly excessive and the highest rate of interest which can be granted to
the present appellants for the enhanced compensation is 6% per annum.
20. The order dated 29.10.2025 which is highlighted by learned
counsel for respondent no.3 is reproduced hereinabove.
21. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book and has also considered the said chart and the same
has been found to be in accordance with law.
22. Since there are two claimants i.e., widow and minor child, who
were both dependent upon the deceased, thus, the appellants have rightly
claimed an amount of Rs.96,000/- (Rs.48,000/- each) on account of loss of
consortium. Even the amount claimed on accounts of loss of estate and
funeral expenses i.e., Rs.18,000/- each is in accordance with settled law.
The appellants in FAO-3876-2019 are thus held entitled to additional
amount of compensation of Rs.62,000/- along with interest at the rate of
FAO-3874-2019 17
7.5% per annum.
RELIEF
23. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
abovesaid FAO-3874-2019 is partly allowed and the impugned award dated
02.11.2018 is modified and respondent no.3 is directed to pay additional
compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- 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 after subtracting 82 days, within a period of six weeks from
today. FAO-3876-2019 is also partly allowed and the impugned award
dated 02.11.2018 is modified and respondent no.3 is directed to pay
additional compensation of Rs.62,000/- 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 after subtracting 82 days, within a period of six weeks from
today.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 06, 2025.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....