Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Preet Chhabra And Ors on 18 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Preet Chhabra And Ors on 18 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025
Reserved on : 12.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 18.02.2026
Uploaded on : 26.02.2026
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Preeti Chhabra and others ....Respondents
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. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate,
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate,
for the cross-objector/respondents No.1 to 4.
Ms. Bindu Bala, Advocate, for
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
FAO-891-2008 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
Insurance Company for setting aside the award dated 22.01.2008 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, (for short, ‘Tribunal’)
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the
claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 were awarded a compensation of
Rs.36,91,665/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -2-
Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra and the appellant-Insurance Company and
respondent No.5-owner and driver of the offending vehicle) were held liable
to pay the compensation, jointly and severally.
XOBJC-121-2025
2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross-
objectors/claimants (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) against the award dated
22.01.2008 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal, for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the cross-objectors/claimants to the tune of
Rs.36,91,665/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of
Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra.
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-
objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors are arising out of the same
award dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-
891-2008 and XOBJC-121-2025 are decided vide this common judgment.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2006, deceased Sanjeev
Kumar Chhabra, along with Jitender Kumar, started from Panipat for Katra
(Jammu) to pay obeisance at the holy shrine of Mata Shri Vaishno Devi, in
car bearing registration No.HR-06M-6288 8. On the way, Ashok Kumar and
Surender Kumar, relatives of the deceased, boarded the car from Rajpura to
join the pilgrimage. The deceased was driving the car at a moderate speed
while observing traffic rules. At about 12:30 a.m., when they reached near
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -3-
the tax barrier of Mansa within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukerian,
Punjab, a loaded truck bearing registration No.PB-07G-8271 was proceeding
ahead of their car. The said truck was being driven by Dilbag Singh,
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending
truck, whereas respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle.
5. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and
filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB-07G-8271 by
respondent No.1? OPP
2. If Issue No.l is proved, to what amount of compensation,
the, claimants are entitled to receive and from whom?
OP Parties.
3. Whether the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the
compensation in view of the preliminary objections taken
by it in its written statement? OPR
4. Relief.”
7. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.36,91,665/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on account
of death of Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra and the appellant-Insurance Company
as well as respondent No.5 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) were
held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Hence, the
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -4-
Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
contends that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased, driver of car bearing registration No.
HR-06M-6288. He further contends that the offending vehicle, moving
truck, was struck from behind by the said car, which prima facie indicates
lack of due care and caution on the part of the deceased while driving. In
such circumstances, it is further contended that the deceased failed to
maintain a safe distance and exercise reasonable prudence expected of a
prudent driver, and therefore, an appropriate proportion of liability ought to
have been apportioned to him on account of contributory negligence. He,
therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to
4/claimants submits that no issue regarding contributory negligence was
framed, nor was any such plea substantiated before the learned Tribunal. He
further submits that driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not
stepped into the witness box to prove negligence on the part of the deceased.
Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal warrants no interference and
the appeal deserves dismissal. He furthermore contends that the
compensation is on lower side and they have preferred cross objections i.e.
XOBJC-121-2025 seeking enhancement of compensation. He, therefore,
prays that the present appeal be dismissed and corss-objections be allowed.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -5-
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
11. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award.
The same is reproduced as under:-
“ISSUE NO. 1
8. In order to prove this issue, the claimants
examined Jatinder Kumar, an eye witness to the accident
and author of FIR as PW2. He at the time of accident
was traveling in the same car. He has stated that on
21.01.2006, he and Sanjeev Kumar, since deceased,
started from Panipat for going to offer prayers at the
temple of Shri, Mata Vaishno Devi at Katra in Jammu by
car No. HR-06M-6288. On the way, two more persons
namely Surinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar boarded the
car from Rajpura. The car was being driven by Sanjeev
Kumar at moderate speed on his due left side. At about
12.30 midnight, when they reached near Maansa Sales
Tax Barrier, the offending truck bearing registration
No.PB-07G-8271 was going ahead of them with its
backdoor open which obstructed the visibility of the
brake-lights. The driver stopped the truck suddenly in the
middle of the road, as a result of which, their car
rammed into the truck. All the occupants of the car
received injuries. Sanjeev Kumar and Surinder Kumar
who were sitting on the front seat died on the spot. They
all the four were taken to Civil Hospital, Mukerian
(Punjab) by the persons present over there where Ashok
Kumar too succumbed to injuries. He further stated that
the police recorded his statement and on the basis of his
statement. FIR Ex.P1 was drawn. In cross-examination,
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -6-
it was suggested to him that the truck was stationary to
get tax clearance when the deceased rammed the car into
its backside while driving the same rashly and
negligently which fact he denied and reiterated that the
truck was stopped abruptly in the middle of the road
which caused the accident and thus, it was the driver of
the truck who was at fault for the same. He further added
that his statement was recorded in Civil Hospital,
Mukerian at about 2.30/3.00 a.m. in the night.
To prove that respondent No.1 is facing trial for
causing the accident, Ashok Kumar Bhalla, Criminal
Ahlmad from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab) examined as PW3.
He has stated that respondent’ No.1 si facing trial for
causing the accident in question in the court of Smt.
Mandeep Kaur, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Dasuya. Charge sheet against him for the offence under
Sections 279/337/304-A/283 IPC has been framed and
now the case is fixed for 3.5.2007 for evidence of the
prosecution. He proved certified copy of the charge sheet
framed against the accused as Ex. P5 and certified copy
of the report submitted by the police under Section 173
Cr.P.C. as Ex. P6.
9. On the other hand, no evidence is led by the
respondents on this issue.
10. From the statement of PW2 which goes unrebutted
and the fact that respondent No.1 is facing trial for
causing the accident, it is proved that the accident had
taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of
the truck in question by respondent No.1. Challans in
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -7-
criminal cases are filed after investigation. Respondent
No.1 did not make any complaint to any authority
regarding his implication by the police. It means he was
satisfied with the investigation. Moreover, respondent
no.1 did not step into witness box to state as to how did
accident take place. Adverse inference is thus to be
drawn against. him. In case Girdhari Lal Vs Radhey
Sham and others, 1993(2) PLR-109, it was held that
when a person was being tried for rash and negligent
driving, then it is prima facie safe to conclude that the
accident in question had occurred due to his rash and
negligent driving. This issue is, therefore, decided in
favour of the claimants.
ISSUE NO.2
11. In order to prove age of the deceased, his income
and dependency factor, his wife Smt. Preeti Chhabra
appeared as PW1 and stated that her husband at the time
of death was about 44 years of age, He was in export
business. He was running. his business as partner in the
firm M/s Anshu International and as sole proprietor of
the firm M/s Haryana Handicrafts. After paying income
tax, his monthly income from said business was
Rs.75,000/-. His income was increasing year by year. She
has further stated that she, her mother-in-law and minor
daughters were dependent upon him. After his death, they
closed business of both the firms as there was no male
member in the family to look after the same. Her both the
daughters are school going, she added.
The claimants in order to prove income of the
deceased examined Sanjeev Kumar, Tax Assistant and
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -8-
Bishni Devi, Senior Tax Assistant from the office of
Income Tax Officer, Panipat. They proved income
returns filed by the deceased as partner of Anshu
International and as proprietor of Haryana Handicrafts
for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 as Ex.P8,
Ex. P9, Ex. P11 and Ex. P12 which were made final and
accepted by the assessing authority under Section 143(1)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letters Ex. P10, EX.
P13 and Ex. P14. Perusal of the same would show that
annual income of the firm M/s Anshu International
during the assessment year 2004-05 was Rs.11,59,760/-
and it was Rs.15,39,110- during the assessment year
2005-06. After paying income tax, the net income of the
firm during the assessment year 2004-05 was
Rs.8,52,329/- and it was Rs.9,75,912/- during the
assessment year 2005-06. Likewise, annual income of the
firm M/s Haryana Handicrafts during the assessment
year 2004-05 was Rs.1,28,523/- and Rs.1,17,355/- during
the assessment year 2005-06 and after payment of
income tax, its net income during the assessment year
2004-05 was Rs.1,13,819/- and it was Rs.1,04,883/-
during the assessment year 2005-06.
To prove that the deceased was a partner in the
firm M/s Anshu International, the claimants examined
Ram Bhajan from Union Bank of India with whom. the
firm had its business account. He has stated that as per
their record, there were two partners in the firm M/s
Anshu International. Another partner of the firm was Ved
Parkash who is examined as pW7. He produced copy of
the partnership deed Ex. P16. Perusal of. the same would
show that the deceased was partner of. 50% in the firm
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -9-
and remaining 50% was held by this witness. This
witness has further stated that after death of Sanjeev
Kumar, the firm stopped carrying the business and now
said firm exists only on papers.
12. On the other hand, no evidence is led by the
respondents on this issue too.
13. From the evidence led by the claimants, it is
proved that the deceased was in the export business. He
was running his business as partner of firm M/s Anshu
International and as sole proprietor of the firm M/s
Haryana Handicrafts. His average annual income from
said business after payment of income tax was
Rs.8,52,329+9,75,912 = 18,28, 241/2=9,14,120/2=
4,57,060+1,09,351 (1,13,819+1,04,883=2,18, 702/2=
1,09,351) =5,66,411 the time he died. Had he been alive,
he would have spent 1/3d of his income to meet his
personal and living expenses and some amount to meet
business and other corporate expenses. Therefore, his
pecuniary contribution to the claimants is assessed at
Rs.2,83,205/- a.m. being of Rs. 5,66, 411/-. As per entry
in the income tax returns, the deceased was born on
13.08.1960. As such, at the time of death, he was more
than 45 years of age. Keeping in view his age, multiplier
of ’13’ shall be suitable as provided under Second
Schedule to Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. If that
multiplier is applied, the compensation on calculation
comes to Rs.2,83,205×13-Rs.36,81, 665/-. Besides that,
the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- as funeral
expenses. In total, they are entitled to Rs.36,91,665/-
compensation from the respondents who are liable to pay
the same jointly and severally. This issue is decided
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -10-
accordingly in favour of the claimants.”
12. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal has meticulously appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record and returned a well-reasoned finding that the
accident in question occurred on account of the sole rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending Truck/Trolla bearing registration No.
PB-07G-8271.
13. From the record, it transpires that the occurrence was witnessed
by Jatinder Kumar who was examined as PW-2. He is not only the eye-
witness but also the author of the FIR. He categorically deposed that he had
noted the registration number of the offending vehicle at the spot and, on the
basis of his statement, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered. In his deposition before
the learned Tribunal, he vividly narrated the manner in which the accident
took place and unequivocally attributed negligence to the driver of the
offending vehicle. Despite being subjected to searching cross-examination,
his testimony remained consistent and unimpeached. The learned Tribunal,
therefore, rightly placed reliance upon his evidence.
14. Significantly, a perusal of the written statement filed by the
Insurance Company discloses that no specific plea of contributory
negligence was raised therein. Neither the driver and owner stepped into the
witness box to substantiate their defence. In the absence of any evidence to
the contrary, the plea now sought to be urged regarding contributory
negligence remains a mere assertion without proof.
15. It is further noteworthy that no issue with regard to contributory
negligence was framed by the learned Tribunal, nor was any evidence led by
the appellant-Insurance Company to establish the same. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)-833/834 of 2023 titled as ‘M. Nithya
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -11-
and Others v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.‘ has held that where no
issue on contributory negligence was framed by the Tribunal, the High Court
ought not to entertain such a plea so as to reduce the compensation awarded.
The ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present
case.
16. It is trite that in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the
standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the claimants/respondents
No.1 to 4 have successfully discharged the said burden by leading cogent
and reliable evidence, particularly the trustworthy testimony of PW-2 which
stands corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the subsequent
criminal proceedings.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of
law, this Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by
the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the offending vehicle solely
negligent. The award, therefore, warrants no interference.
XOBJC-121-2025
18. Adverting now to the cross-obections filed by the
claimants/cross-objectors seeking enhancement of compensation.
19. A perusal of the record reveals that income of the deceased was
rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.47,200/- per month. It is
further reveals from the record that the age of the deceased was 45 years 05
months and 08 days at the time of accident. It is further evident from the
record that nothing has been awarded for future prospects, loss of estate and
loss of consortium. It is further transpired that the learned Tribunal has
erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenditure instead of 1/4.
20. Moreover, learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of
13 instead of 14. It is settled law as held by Apex Court in Shashikala and
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -12-
others Versus Gangalakshmamma and another, 2015 (9) SCC 150 that
for purpose of applying multiplier age last completed must be taken and not
the age including the additional months. Therefore, the award requires
indulgence of this Court.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
21. 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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -13-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.
* * * * * *
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.
22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -14-
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
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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -15-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.
* * * * *
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.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -16-59.4. 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
Verma 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.”
23. 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:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -17-“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
“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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -18-
the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the
economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore
permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the
parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium
is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count. However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as
laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem
it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross-objections filed by
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -19-
the cross-objectors/respondents No.1 to 4 are allowed. The award dated
22.01.2008 is modified accordingly. The cross-objectors/claimants are held
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.47,200/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.11,800/- (25% of 47,200)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.14,750/- {(47,200 + 11,800) X
expenditure 1/4 1/4}
4 Total Income Rs.44,250/- (59,000 - 14,750)
5 Multiplier 14
6 Annual Dependency Rs.74,34,000/- (44,250 X 12 X 14)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
Parental : Rs.40,000 x 1
Spousal : Rs.40,000 x 1
Filial : Rs. 40,000 x 2
Total Compensation Rs.76,24,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.36,91,665/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.39,32,335/-
(Rs.76,24,000 - 36,91,665)
25. 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 Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the cross-objectors/
claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-891-2008 (O&M) &
XOBJC-121-2025 -20-
26. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation 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 amount of compensation along with interest in the account of
cross-objectors/claimants as per ratio settled in the award. The cross-
objectors/claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the
Tribunal.
27. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
18.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Virender JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.26 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
