FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M)

RAM AVTAR ......Appellant

Vs.

GAJENDER @ GAJIA AND ORS. ......Respondents

Reserved on: 09.02.2026

Pronounced on: 11.02.2026

Uploaded on: 12.02.2026

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. Mohit Garg, Advocate

for the appellant.

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (through v.c.)

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate

for respondent No.6-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

22.09.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of

compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/-

along with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of deceased

Omwati @ Omo Devi in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on

01.02.2007.

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -2-

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 and is

skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that

the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and

deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be

allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be

enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6-Insurance

Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and

contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has

rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. She further contends that

respondent No.6-Insurance Company has preferred FAO-2801-2010,

FAO-2802 to 2816-2010 and CR-5035-2010, challenging the liability as

affixed upon Insurance Company. She further contends that vide order dated

19.01.2011, Coordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the liability of

Insurance Company and made owner of the offending vehicle to pay the

compensation to the claimants. She therefore prays that respondent No.6-

Insurance Company should not be made liable to pay the compensation.

Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

whole record of this case.

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -3-

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, 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

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -4-

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.

* * * * *

*

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.

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -5-

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;

(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

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -6-

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,

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.

* * * *

*

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -7-

 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 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.

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -8-

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 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

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -9-

"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

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,

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -10-

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.

9. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the

deceased was 50 years at the time of accident. The factum of age is not

disputed by either of the party before this Court. Consequently, the age of

the deceased is taken as 50 years.

10. A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased was stated

to be a homemaker. Her monthly income was asserted to be Rs.15,000/- but

no documentary evidence substantiating her income was produced before the

learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking income

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -11-

of deceased housewife as Rs.3,000/-per month by taking into account the

minimum wages for unskilled labourers in the State of Haryana.

11. This Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as ‘Jasbir Singh and

another Vs. Surjit Singh and others’, decided on 22.03.2018 while

assessing the notional income of the housewife has held as under:-

“In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in

Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others

2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673), made the following

observations:-

“Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that

even while noticing that the income of a skilled

worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the

Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the

deceased as Rs.9000/-. As per him once the

notional income had been taken a deduction had to

be made for personal expenses. This argument is

flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of

Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil)

673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981)

the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the

contribution of a house wife at Rs.3000/-per month.

The accident in the present case took place after 23

years. In my considered opinion to tag a house wife

as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete

justice to her multifarious role as a home manager.

Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years between the

accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the

present accident and my conclusion that a house

wife is something more than a mere skilled worker

it would not be unreasonable to estimate the

contribution of the deceased in the present case at

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -12-

a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for

reducing the quantum."

7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO

No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the

Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in

this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by

the appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently,

these orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for

further dispute regarding their binding nature.

8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of

a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend

beyond measurable economic parameters, encompassing

household management, child care, emotional support,

and the upkeep of familial stability. These services,

though often unrecognized in monetary terms, are

invaluable to the functioning and well- being of a

household. In assessing compensation, the court must

factor in this indispensable contribution, which would

otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if

outsourced. In view of the above, it is just and reasonable

to determine the monthly income of the deceased

Charanjit Kaur, housewife at Rs.9,000/- per month,

therefore, the award requires interference by the Court.”

12. In Jasbir Singh’s case (supra), the notional income of a

housewife was taken as Rs.9000/-. Therefore, in the present case, with the

accident occurring in 2007, and in view of sustained inflation, the rising cost

of living, and jurisprudential acknowledgment of the far-reaching economic

contribution of homemakers, it is both just and reasonable to reassess the

notional income of the deceased.

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -13-

13. The work of a housewife transcends caretaking embracing

preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries and

household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and

surroundings; financial planning and budget management; child care and

education; tending to elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and

homebased healthcare etc. These services, if procured in the open market,

would command substantial remuneration, underscoring the integral role

played by a homemaker in family stability.

14. In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the

facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to

assess the notional income of the deceased-Omwati @ Omo Devi at

Rs.6,000/- per month.

15. The learned Tribunal has erred in not adding future prospects

while calculating the compensation.

16. In addition to this, no amount was awarded under the head of

loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Moreover, learned

Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 8 instead of 13. Therefore, the

award requires indulgence of this Court.

CONCLUSION

17. 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 22.09.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bhiwani is modified accordingly. The appellant/claimant is entitled to the

enhanced amount of compensation from the respondents, as per the

calculations made here-under:-

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -14-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income Rs.6,000/-

2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.1,500/- (6000 X 25%)

3 Deduction towards personal

expenditure 1/3

Rs.2,500/- (7500 X 1/3)

4. Total Income Rs.5000/- (7500-2500)

5 Multiplier 13

6 Annual Dependency Rs.7,80,000/- (5000X12X13)

7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

9 Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-

10Total Compensation Rs.8,50,000/-

11Deduction

Amount Awarded by the TribunalRs.1,92,000/-

12Enhanced amount Rs.6,58,000/- (8,50,000-1,92,000)

18. 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 amount so

calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of

the claim petition, till the date of realization.

19. So far as the liability to pay compensation is concerned,

Coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO-2801-2010, FAO-2802 to 2816-2010

and CR-5035-2010 has set aside the liability of Insurance Company and

made owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the

claimants. Consequently, the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the

enhanced 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 same to the appellant/claimant in their bank

FAO-1643-2010 (O&M) -15-

accounts. The appellant/claimant are directed to furnish their bank account

details to the Tribunal.

20. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE

11.02.2026

Ayub/Sahil

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes