UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

Judgment Reserved On: 11.09.2026

Judgment Pronounced On:29.09.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No.250 of 2011

Smt. Pushpa Farasi & Others …Appellants

Versus

New India Insurance Company Ltd.

& Others …Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants

M r. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned

counsel for the respondent – New India Insurance Company Ltd.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Shri Justice Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. The present appeal from order has been

preferred by the appellants /claimants against the

judgment and award dated 11.04.2011 passed by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge,

Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No.20/2009, whereby the learned

Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the

appellants/claimants for compensation of ₹ 4,52,000/-

and has held the respondent no.1-New India Insurance

Company Limited and respondent no.2 -owner of the car

jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal fastened the

liability to pay the compensation upon respondent no.1

and directed it to pay the same to the claimants within

1

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

two months from the date of passing of the order,

failing which, the claimants would be entitled to get

interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition. It was further directed that out of the

amount of compensation, appellant no.1/claimant no.1

Smt. Pushpa Farasi would be entitled to get ₹ 2,00,000

and the remaining amount would be equally payable in

favour of rest of the claimants. Since appellant

no.2/claimant no.2 was minor, hence, his share was

directed to be kept in a FDR till he attains the age of

majority.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the

appellants/claimants filed a claim petition before the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun stating that

on 23.11.2008 Prakshep Farasi (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘deceased’) was going towards Rajpur Road on

his motorcycle bearing registration no.UA07-L-7917 and

at 09.30 a. m. when he reached near Mussoorie Ring

Road, he was hit by an Ambassad or car bearing

registration No.UA07-B-0272, which was being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As a result

of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries. He was immediately taken to Param Hospital,

2

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

Dehradun, where he was admitted and provided

medical treatment. However, despite receiving

treatment, his condition did not improve and ultimately

on 13.12.2008 he succumbed to the injuries sustained

in the accident. In the claim petition, it was stated that

the deceased was educated and possessed Diploma in

Fitter and Computer and had also undergone courses in

Electronics, etc.; he was earning more than ₹ 7,000/-

per month from doing electrical work. With these

averments, claim petition was filed by the claimants,

who are wife, son, mother and father of the deceased,

claiming compensation of ₹ 17,95,000/-.

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited

was impleaded as respondent no.1 , and the owner and

driver of the offending vehicle were impleaded as

respondent nos.2 and 3, respectively in the claim

petition. The respondent no.1 Insurance Company filed

its written statement denying the averments made in

the claim petition and, inter-alia, pleaded that it was a

case of contributory negligence. Respondent nos.2 and

3 filed a joint written statement and contended that the

deceased was not wearing a helmet and was driving his

motorcycle rashly and negligently and was coming from

3

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

wrong side and the accident had occurred due to the

own negligence of the deceased. Learned Tribunal, on

the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed two issues,

which are as follows:-

(i) Whether on 23.11.2008 at about 09:30 am

at Mussoorie Bypass Ring Road an accident

occurred on account of rash and negligent

driving of Ambassador car no.UA07 -B-0272

by its driver, in which Prakshep Farasi

sustained injuries?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get the

compensation? If yes, to what amount and

from which party?

4. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence

adduced before it, decided issue no.1 in favour of the

claimants and held the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly

and severally liable but as the offending vehicle was

insured with the respondent no.1 Insurance Company

on the relevant date and time, it directed the

respondent no.1 Insurance Company to pay the

compensation to the claimants. Learned Tribunal

considered the statement of appellant no.1 Pushpa

Farasi (PW1), wife of deceased; PW2 Manjeet Singh,

4

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

who claimed to be the eyewitness, PW3 Dr. V.K. Nautiyal,

the doctor who treated the deceased. Learned Tribunal also

considered the documentary evidence produced before it

and came to the conclusion that the incident had occurred

due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Ambassador

car no.UA07-B-0272. The findings recorded by the learned

Tribunal on issue no.1 have not been put to challenge by

the respondents and the same has attained finality. This

Court has also taken into consideration the statements of

the prosecution witnesses and the evidence adduced before

the Tribunal and does not find any infirmity in the findings

recorded by the Tribunal with regard to issue no.1.

5. Thus, the only issue which arises for

consideration in the present appeal is with regard to the

findings recorded on issue no.2 i.e. the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which according to

the appellants/claimants is on lower side, and it was their

further case that the Tribunal has failed to award

appropriate compensation under several permissible heads.

6. While deciding issue no.2, the learned

Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the

insurance of the offending vehicle with respondent no.1

on the relevant date. Accordingly, the liability to satisfy

the award was fastened upon the Insurance Company.

5

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

7. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the

deceased to be ₹ 3,000/- per month as the claimants

were not able to prove the income of the deceased to

be ₹ 7,000/- per month. As per the high school

certificate of the deceased, the date of birth of the

deceased was 03.06.1972 and as such he was aged

about 36 years on the date of incident and accordingly

the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘16’. The Tribunal

further recorded that the deceased would have spend

1/3

rd

on himself towards his personal and living

expenses as such deduction of 1/3

rd

was made from the

income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal also granted

a sum of ₹ 57,459/ - for medical expenses and ₹

10,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

In total, compensation to the tune of ₹ 4,52,000/- was

awarded in favour of the claimants. The finding s

recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment are

as follows:-

“;kphx.k dh vksj ls e`rd dh ekfld vk; ds lacaèk esa dksbZ vk; çek.k i= i=koyh

ij nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls e`rd dh fuf'pr ekfld vk; dk vkdayu

fd;k tk ldsA ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd dh U;wure vk; ekuk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk A

vr% e`rd dh 3000@& :i;s ekfld U;wure vk; ekurs gq;s mldh okf"kZd vk;

36]000@& :i;s gksrh gSA ;fn e`rd thfor gksrk rks og bl vk; esa ls ,d frgkbZ

Loa; vius us mij O;; djrkA bl çdkj% e`rd dh 24000@& :i;s okf"kZd vk;

vkfJr gkfu gsrq fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gS A bl èkujkf'k esa 16 dk xq.kkad yxk;s tkus ij

;g èkujkf'k vdau 3]84]000@& :i;s gksrh gSA ;kphx.k }kjk e`rd ds mij mldh

e`R;q ls iwoZ nokbZ o ijh{k.k vkfn ij vdau 57]459@ :i;s O;; fd;k tkuk lkfcr

6

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

gSA ;g èkujkf'k Hkh ;kphx.k dks fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ekuk tkrk gSA ;kphx.k dks

e`rd ds nkg laLdkj ij Hkh dqN èkujkf'k O;; djuh iM+h gksxh vkSj e`rd dh

vlkef;d e`R;q ij e`rd ds ifjokjtu mlds çse] Lusg o lkfuè; ls oafpr gks x;s A

vr% lHkh ckrksa dks è;ku esa j[krs gq;s bl gsrq ;kphx.k dks 10-000 @& :i;s ,d

eq'r fnyk;k tkuk Hkh U;k;ksfpr ekuk tkrk gS A bl çdkj dqy çfrdj èkujkf'k

4]51]459@& :i;s gksrh gS] ftls jkm.M Qhxj esa 4]52]000@& ¼pkj yk[k ckou

gtkj½ :i;s ekuk tkrk gSA rnuqlkj çLrqr dsl esa ;kphx.k vdau& 4]52]000@&

:i;s {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa çkIr djus dh vfèkdkjh ik;s tkrs gSa A

”

8. Learned Tribunal directed the respondent

no.1 Insurance Company to pay the amount of

compensation to the claimants within two months from

the date of order, failing which the claimants would be

entitled to receive interest @ 7% per annum from the

date of filing of the claim petition.

9. The said Award has been assailed by the

appellants/claimants in the present appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the

appellants made the following submissions:-

(i) The deceased had undergone one year

certificate course of Fitter from the Garhwal

Jal Sansthan, Dehradun and also possessed

the Diploma in Computer Programming, as

such, it is clear that the deceased was skilled

worker and therefore notional income was

wrongly assessed by the Tribunal as ₹

7

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

3,000/- per month whereas it ought to have

been ₹ 7,000/- per month as claimed by the

claimants.

(ii) The Tribunal committed an error in making

deduction of one-third towards personal and

living expenses; as there were four persons

dependent upon the deceased i .e. the wife,

son, mother and father, the deduction should

have been one-fourth.

(iii) The Tribunal has not granted any amount

towards future prospects and it ought to have

been 50% of the income of the deceased.

(iv) The Tribunal has erred in awarding interest

only in case of non-payment of compensation

within two months from the date of order and

the interest @ 7% was payable from the date

of filing of the claim petition till the date of

realisation of compensation and as such the

award of conditional interest was not proper.

10. In support of his submissions, learned

counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed reliance

on the following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court:-

(i) Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport

8

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121

(ii) Kirti and another vs. Oriental Insurance

Company, (2021) 2 SCC 166

(iii) Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi vs. Kasam Daud

Kumbhar and others, (2015) 4 SCC 237

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no.1 - New India Insurance Company, while

supporting the Award passed by the Tribunal, made the

following submissions:-

(i) The accident pertains to the year 2008 and in

view of judgment of this Court in “Ishwari

Dutt Joshi and another vs. State of

Uttarakhand” (2008) 1 UD 148, the notional

income of ₹ 3,000/- per month was rightly

taken into consideration as the claimants had

failed to prove the income of the deceased as

₹ 7,000/- per month.

(ii) A conditional simple interest @ 7% per

annum has been rightly awarded by the

Tribunal.

(iii) The amount of ₹ 10,000/- towards funeral

expense and loss of estate looking to the

year of incident is also justified and proper.

9

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

(iv) The judgments on which the learned counsel

for the appellants has placed reliance are not

applicable to the facts and circumstances of

the case.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the entire record.

13. So far as the income of the deceased is

concerned, record reveals that the claimants have not

produced any evidence to substantiate their claim that

the deceased was earning more than ₹ 7,000/- per

month. Thus, in absence of any proof of income, the

Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the

concept of notional income and has rightly assessed the

income of the deceased to be ₹ 3,000/ - per month.

The said notional income is in conformity with the

minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the

relevant time in the State of Uttarakhand.

14. The next question is with regard to the

deduction towards the personal and living expenses of

the deceased. On this count, the Tribunal has made

1/3

rd

deduction, which looking to the number of

dependants of the deceased is erroneous and

10

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

unjustified. The deceased left behind four dependants,

namely, his wife, son, mother and father. In view of

Sarla Varma case (supra), where the dependants are

between four to six, the deduction towards personal

and living expenses would be 1/4

th

, thus, the Tribunal

has erred in making deduction of 1/3

rd

from the income

of the deceased and it should be 1/4

th

.

15. The appellants/claimants have also claimed

an addition towards future prospects. Hon’ble Apex

Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi and others” (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in

para 59.4 of judgment, has held that 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. Paragraph 59.4 of the judgment is

reproduced as under:-

“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.”

11

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

16. In the present case, the deceased was aged

about 36 years. Hence, in view of aforesaid judgment,

an addition of 40% on the income of the d eceased

towards future prospects should be made.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in New India

Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati and

Others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 , after considering the

earlier decisions in Magma General Insurance Company

Limited v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and United

India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur,

(2021) 11 SCC 780, recognized that consortium is not

confined to spousal consortium and may include

parental and filial consortium. Paragraph nos. 35 to 45

of judgment are reproduced as under:-

“35. The word “consortium” has been defined in Black's Law

Dictionary, 10th Edn. The Black's Law Dictionary also, simultaneously,

notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal

consortium in the following manner:

“Consortium1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is

entitled to receive from another, including companionship,

cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between

spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium.

• Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and

companionship given to a parent.

• Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and

companionship given to a child.

• Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and

companionship given to the other spouse.”

12

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

36. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. [Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC

(Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] as well as United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11

SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] , the three -Judge Bench laid

down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it

also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In para

87 of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] ,

“consortium” to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is

quoted below:

“87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the

deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as

his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi

[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :

(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] and Magma

General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018)

18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] ,

the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

(i) Loss of estate : Rs 15,000

(ii) Loss of consortium:

(a) Spousal consortium : Rs 40,000

(b) Parental consortium : 40,000 × 3 = Rs 1,20,000

(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000”

37. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay

Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680

: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] has only referred

to spousal consortium and no other consortium was re ferred to in the

judgment of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,

(2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri)

205] , hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental

consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay

Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680

: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] has referred to

amount of Rs 40,000 to the “loss of consortium” but the Constitution

Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs

40,000 is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay

Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680

: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] cannot be read to

mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable

only to the wife.

13

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

38. The three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [United

India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020

SCC OnLine SC 410] has categorically laid down that apart from

spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel

ourselves bound by the above judgment of the three -Judge Bench.

We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the

claimants is not sustainable.

39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments [Somwati v.

Dharmendra Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine All 3897]

,

[Sangita Devi v. New

India Assurance Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10877]

,

[New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Azmati Khatoon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10530]

,

[Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Umarani, 2019 SCC

OnLine Mad 29630]

,

[Pinki v. Rajeev, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11882]

,

[Nanak Chand v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 SCC O nLine Del

62]

,

[Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del

10493] of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants

in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this

appeal. We, however, accept the sub missions of the learned counsel

for the appellant that there is no justification for award of

compensation under separate head “loss of love and affection”. The

appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the

award of compensation under the head “loss of love and affection”.

40. We may also notice the three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Sangita Arya

v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)

905] The counsel for the appellant submits that this Court has granted

only Rs 40,000 towards “loss of consortium” which is an indication that

“consortium” cannot be granted to children. In the above case, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs 20,000 to the widow

towards loss of consortium and Rs 10,000 to the minor daughter

towards “loss of love and affection”. The High Court has reduced

[Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC OnLine

Utt 970] the amount of consortium from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000. Para

16 of the judgment is to the following effect : (Sangita Arya case

[Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 :

(2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] , SCC p. 330, para

10)

“10. The consortium payable to the widow was reduced

[Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangita Arya, 2016 SCC

OnLine Utt 970] by the High Court from Rs 20,000 (as awarded by

14

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

MACT) to Rs 10,000; the amount awarded towards loss of love and

affection to the minor daughters was reduced from Rs 10,000 to Rs

5000. However, the amount of Rs 5000 awarded by MACT towards

funeral expenses was maintained.”

41. This Court in the above case confined its consideration towards the

income of the deceased and there was n either any claim nor any

consideration that the consortium should have been paid to other legal

heirs also. There being no claim for payment of consortium to other

legal heirs, this Court awarded Rs 40,000 towards consortium. No such

ratio can be deciphered from the above judgment that this Court held

that consortium is only payable as a spousal consortium and

consortium is not payable to children and parents.

42. It is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur,

(2021) 11 SCC 780 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410] which was delivered

shortly after the above three-Judge Bench judgment of Sangeeta Arya

[Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 327 :

(2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 254 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 905] specifically laid

down that both spousal and parental consortium are payable which

judgment we have already noticed above.

43. We may also notice one more three-Judge Bench judgment of this

Court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

[M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 6

SCC 400 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 274 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 744] dec ided

on 12-6-2020. In the above case, the Tribunal had granted the amount

of rupees one lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife and rupees

three lakhs for all the appellants towards loss of love and affection.

The High Court in the above case had reduc ed the amount of

compensation in the appeal filed by the insurance company. The High

Court held [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.H. Uma Maheshwari,

2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6258] that by awarding the amount of rupees

one lakh towards loss of consortium to the wife, the Tribunal had

committed error while awarding rupees one lakh to the first appellant

towards the head of “loss of love and affection”. Allowing the appeal

filed by the claimant, this Court maintained the order of MACT.

44. In the above judgmen t although rendered by the three -Judge

Bench, there was no challenge to award of compensation of rupees

one lakh towards the consortium and rupees three lakhs towards the

loss of love and affection. The appeal was filed only by the claimants

and not by the insurance company. The Court did not pronounce on

the correctness of the amount awarded under the head “loss of love

15

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

and affection”.

45. We may also notice the additional submission advanced in Civil

Appeal No. 3099 of 2020 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 82 50 of 2020],

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinku Devi & Others. As noted above,

we have taken the view that the order [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10493] of the High Court awarding

compensation towards “loss of love and affection” @ Rs 50,000 to each

of the claimants is unjustified which is being set aside in this appeal.

We, further, in the above appeal also set aside the directions of the

High Court in para 9 by which statutory amount along with interest

accrued thereon was directed to be deposited in A ASRA fund.”

18. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment rendered

in the case of “Neelam and others vs. Ganga Singh

& Others” (2026) SCC Online SC 888 .

19. Accordingly, while the assessment of the

monthly income of the deceased at ₹3,000/ - is

maintained, the deduction towards personal and living

expenses is modified from one-third to one-fourth. An

addition of 40% towards future prospects shall also be

made, keeping in view the age of the deceased. The

claimants shall further be entitled to compensation

under the appropriate conventional heads, including

loss of consortium, in accordance with the applicable

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the

appeal filed by the appellants/claimants deserves to be

16

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned

Tribunal is liable to be enhanced . The

appellants/claimants would be entitled to get enhanced

compensation of ₹ 7,94,800/- under the following

heads:-

S.No. Compensation Heads Amount

1. Monthly income 3,000/- per month

i.e. 36,000/- per

annum

2. Future prospects @ 40% 36,000 + 14,400 =

50,400

3. Multiplier ‘16’ 50,400 x 16 =

8,06,400

4. One-fourth deduction towards

personal and living expenses

8,06,400 – 2,01,600

= 6,04,800

5. Loss of consortium @ 40,000 per

person

1,60,000

6. Loss of Estate 15,000

7. Funeral expenses 15,000

8. Total compensation 7,94,800

21. This amount of compensation would carry

interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition till the date of its realisation. Out of the

amount of compensation, the appellant no.1/claimant

no.1 would be entitled to get 50% and the remaining

amount would be equally divided amongst appellant

nos.2, 3 and 4. The amount already paid by the

respondent no.1-New India Insurance Company Ltd., if

17

UKHC010006372011

2026:UHC:8801

any, shall be adjusted towards the final compensation

payable to the appellants/claimants. The amount of

compensation along with interest shall be paid by the

respondent no.1 to the claimants within two months

from the date of this order.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J .)

Dt. 29.09.2026

Rajni

18