Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company … vs Gurleen Kaur And Others on 9 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant
vs.
Gurleen Kaur & ors. ......Respondents
Date of Reserve of FAO: 10.03.2026
Date of Reserve of Cross Obj: 24.02.2026
Pronounced on: 09.04.2026
Uploaded on:- 10.04.2026
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. Sarthak Mehta, Ms. Rajni Godara and
Mr. P.H.S. Pannu, Advocates
for the appellant.
Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
28.11.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that the liability to pay compensation to the tune
of Rs. 38,43,000/- has been wrongly fixed upon the appellant-Insurance Company.
XOBJC-27-2026
2. The present cross-objection has been preferred by
cross-objector/claimants against the 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Motor
GAURAV ARORA
Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 2
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the
claimants to the tune of Rs.38,43,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on
account of death of Gagandeep Singh who died in road accident, which occurred
on 12.04.2019.
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-
objections filed by the cross-objectors/legal heirs of the claimant are arising out of
the same award dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-
665-2024 and XOBJC-27-2026 are decided vide this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2019, Gurwinder Singh son of
Bhinder Singh, resident of village Kallar Majri, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala had
gone to Mohali in his Swift car bearing registration no. PB-11AP-0021 for his work
and after finishing his work in the evening, he went to Sector 78, Mohali to meet
Gagandeep Singh (since deceased) where he was getting his new shop constructed
for running the business. At about 10.30 pm, they both proceeded towards Patiala in
their respective cars. Gagandeep Singh was driving car bearing registration no. CH-
01AU-4177 and Gurwinder Singh was driving his Swift car bearing registration no.
PB-11AP-0021. Gagandeep Singh was driving his Bolero car on his left side at
normal speed ahead of Gurwinder Singh. At about 12.00 am, Bolero car of
Gagandeep Singh struck against tractor trolley bearing registration no. HR-04G-
6038 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle, for convenience), which was parked
on the road without any indication, as a result of which, Gagandeep Singh received
multiple grievous injuries. He was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but due to his
serious condition, he was taken to Amar Hospital, Patiala, where he died. FIR no.
59 dated 12.04.2019, under Sections 283, 304-A & 427 IPC regarding this accident
was registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 3
5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted
the factum of compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by
the learned Tribunal :-
“1. Whether Gagandeep Singh died in the motor vehicular accident
occurring due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-04G-
6038 by respondent no.1? OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what
extent and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a legal and valid driving
licence at the time of the accident? If so, its effect? OPR-2
4. Whether there is breach of any condition of the insurance policy by
respondent no.1? OPR-2
5. Relief.
7. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.38,43,000/-. However, the appellant-Insurance
Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contends that
the FIR was initially registered against an unknown vehicle and an unidentified
person. It is argued that the alleged offending vehicle has subsequently been falsely
implicated in the present case. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present appeal
be allowed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/cross-
objectors contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly made the appellant-
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 4
Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. He further
contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and
deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present cross-objection be
allowed and appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company be dismissed and
amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
11. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant
portion of the award, which reads as under:-
“Issue no.1
10. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimants. As per version
of the claimants, Gagandeep Singh died in a motor vehicular
accident which took place on 12.04.2019 on account of negligent act
of respondent no.1 by parking the offending vehicle bearing
registration no. HR-04G-6038 on the road, without any indicators.
11. To so establish the fact and manner of accident, claimants
examined Gurwinder Singh, an eye witness to the accident as CW2
and in his sworn testimony in the form of affidavit Ex.CW2/A, he has
deposed that on 12.04.2019 he had gone to Mohali in his Swift car
bearing registration no. PB-11AP-0021 for his work and after
finishing his work in the evening, he went to Sector 78, Mohali to
meet Gagandeep Singh (deceased) where he was getting his new
shop constructed for running the business. At about 10.30 pm, they
both proceeded towards Patiala in their respective cars. Gagandeep
Singh was driving car bearing registration no. CH-01AU-4177 and
he was driving his Swift car bearing registration no. PB-11AP-0021.
Gagandeep Singh was driving his Bolero car on his left side at
normal speed ahead of him. At about 12.00 am, Bolero car of
Gagandeep Singh struck against offending vehicle, which was parked
on the road without any indicators, as a result of which GagandeepGAURAV ARORA
Singh received multiple grievous injuries. He was taken to Rajindra
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 5Hospital, Patiala but due to his serious condition, he was later taken
to Amar Hospital, Patiala, where he died. The matter was reported to
the police and on his statement, FIR no. 59 dated 12.04.2019, under
Sections 283, 304-A & 427 IPC regarding this accident was
registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, copy of which is Ex.C27.
He further deposed that after theaccident, respondent no.1 fled away
from the spot by taking the advantage of darkness. He further
deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of
respondent no.1, who parked the offending vehicle on the road
without any indicators.
12. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has argued
that no accident, as alleged has taken place with the offending
vehicle and a false FIR has been got registered by the claimants in
connivance with the police. He further argued that the claimants
have filed the present claim petition by falsely involving the offending
vehicle in the alleged accident just to get compensation.
13. The learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company has
argued that the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle and
unknown person and the claimants have filed the present claim
petition in collusion with respondent no.1 just to get claim under
Motor Vehicles Act. To lend force to his contention, learned counsel
for the respondent no.2 has drawn the attention of this Tribunal
towards FIR (Ex.C26). He further argued that CW2 Gurwinder Singh
has stated in his cross-examination that police traced the offending
vehicle and its RC number and told it to him. He also stated that the
name of driver of offending tractor was also disclosed to him by the
police. He argued that from the testimony of this witness, it stands
proved that offending vehicle has been falsely involved in the alleged
accident and hence the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has
argued that though the FIR was lodged against unknown person and
unknown vehicle but later on, it was revealed that the accident took
place due to negligent act of respondent no.1 by parking theGAURAV ARORA
offending vehicle on the road without any indicators and accordingly,
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 6respondent no.1 was arrayed as accused in the criminal case and
now he is facing trial in the said case. He further argued that there is
nothing on the record to suggest that respondent no.1 has moved any
higher authorities regarding his false implication in the said FIR. He
further argued that from the evidence led before this Tribunal, the
claimants have duly proved that the accident in question had
occurred due to negligent act of respondent no.1 by parking the
offending vehicle on the road without any indicators.
15. I have very thoughtfully considered the contentions of both the
sides. It is settled law that in a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict
proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular
manner cannot be expected from the claimants. The claimants are
merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt may not
be possible.
16. In the present case, CW2 Gurwinder Singh in his affidavit,
Ex.CW2/A, has given the details of the accident and has stated in
clear terms that the accident had occurred due to negligent act of
respondent no.1 by parking the offending vehicle on the road without
any indicators and despite lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the
respondents, nothing could be elucidated from this witness to shake
his veracity. Moreover, the respondent no.1 has not led any evidence
to prove his defence. The best witness to depose in this regard was
respondent no.1 but he did not appear in the witness box for the
reasons best known to him and for his non-appearance in the witness
box, an adverse inference is drawn against him. Moreover, it is
settled law that registration of FIR is sufficient to prove the
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this
regard, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Girdhari Lal
vs. Radhe Shyam and others, 1993 PLR 109, has held that
registration of the criminal case against the driver of the offending
vehicle is a prima facie proof that accident was caused as a result ofGAURAV ARORA
his negligence. Further, in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 7Company Ltd. vs. Kuldeep Kaur & others, FAO No. 3654-2018,
decided on 05.07.2018, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
has held that, “in the considered view of this Court the award of a
claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is based on welfare legislation
and proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are
summary in nature and only preponderance of evidence is required
while awarding compensation in favour of the claimants. Pendency
of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is
sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the driver of the offending
vehicle was rash and negligent in causing the accident.” In the
present case, the respondent no.1 has alleged that a false FIR has
been got registered by involving the offending vehicle in the alleged
accident, but there is nothing on record to show that respondent no.1
has moved any application before any higher authority regarding his
false implication in the said FIR.
17. As far as the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.2-
insurance company that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle
and unknown person and the offending vehicle has been falsely
involved in the present case is concerned, then it is observed that the
claimants have also produced on record copy of report submitted by
the police under Section 173 Cr.PC as Ex.C27 and a perusal of this
report reveals that though the FIR was lodged against unknown
person and unknown vehicle but during investigation, it was found
that the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle and that
at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by
respondent no.1 Ishwar Dayal. Thus, respondent no.1 Ishwar Dayal
was arrayed as accused in the criminal case and the challan has
been presented against him in the Court. In Suman and others vs.
Anil Kumar and another, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 462, the FIR was
lodged against unknown vehicle and unknown driver and the
Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. However, the Hon’ble Punjab
& Haryana High Court while setting aside the award of the Tribunal
has observed that, “FIR is not substantive piece of evidence and itsGAURAV ARORA
only purpose is to set criminal machinery in motion. Involvement of
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 8offending vehicle was found to be there in accident by Investigating
Officer. Driver was booked for accident and finding sufficient
incriminating evidence against the driver, he was forwarded to face
trial and formal charge-sheet has been framed against him.”
18. As far as the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.2-
insurance company that CW2 Gurwinder Singh has stated in his
cross-examination that police traced the offending vehicle and its RC
number and told it to him and that the name of driver of offending
tractor was also disclosed to him by the police, is concerned, then
this part of his statement cannot washout the claim of claimants as
CW2 Gurwinder Singh has also stated during cross-examination that
he was called by the police to identify the accused and he had
identified the accused. He further stated that he saw the accused
second time and prior to that he had seen him on the day of accident.
So it stands established that this witness had seen the accused at the
time of accident. Thus, this contention of learned counsel is devoid of
any merit.
19. As far as the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.3-
insurance company that the claimants have filed the present claim
petition in collusion with respondent no.1 just to claim compensation,
is concerned, then it is observed that the insurance company has
failed to adduce on record any evidence to prove the collusion
between the claimants and respondent no.1 to get the compensation
in the present case. Furthermore, the respondent no.1 has vehemently
contested the claim of the claimants and there is nothing on the
record to prove any collusion between claimants and respondent
no.1. Apart from above, it is an admitted fact that the FIR was lodged
and after investigation, the police has submitted its final report under
Section 173 Cr.PC indicating the respondent no.1, driver of the
offending vehicle to be negligent while parking the offending vehicle
on the road without any indicators, resulting in the accident in
question. Thus, this contention of learned counsel for respondent
no.2 is also devoid of any merit.
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 9
20. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the accident was
caused due to negligent act of respondent no.1 by parking the
offending vehicle on the road without any indicators and in the said
accident Gagandeep Singh received injuries, which proved fatal for
him. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants and
against the respondents.”
ANALYSIS OF RECORD
12. Upon a careful consideration of the record, this Court finds no
infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and
negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and has applied the settled principles governing
adjudication of claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
wherein the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
13. The testimony of CW2 Gurwinder Singh has been duly relied upon by
the Tribunal, and nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination so as
to discredit his version. Furthermore, respondent No.4-driver cum owner, who was
the best person to depose with regard to the manner of the accident, failed to step
into the witness box, thereby inviting an adverse inference against him.
14. The contention raised regarding the FIR having been initially
registered against an unknown vehicle and unknown person has also been rightly
rejected. The Tribunal has taken into account the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
which clearly establishes that during investigation, the involvement of the offending
vehicle and respondent No.4-driver cum owner was ascertained and challan was
presented against him. The said circumstance, coupled with the settled legal
position that FIR and criminal proceedings can be relied upon to prima facie
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 10
establish negligence in motor accident claims, sufficiently supports the case of the
claimants.
15. The allegations of false implication and collusion have remained
unsubstantiated, as no cogent evidence has been led by the respondents in support
thereof. On the contrary, the material available on record clearly indicates that the
accident occurred due to the negligent act of respondent No.4-driver cum owner in
parking the offending vehicle on the road without any indicators.
16. In view of the foregoing, this Court concurs with the well-reasoned
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and holds that the accident in question
occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
The findings on this issue are accordingly upheld.
XOBJC-27-2026
17. Adverting now to the cross-objections filed by the claimants/cross-
objectors seeking enhancement of compensation, the same is dealt as under after
taking into consideration the settled law on compensation.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
18. 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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 11living 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
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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 12earning 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.
19. 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;
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 13
(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 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,
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 14should 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.
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.
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 1559.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years.”
20. 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,
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 16
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation”.
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and
agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the 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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 17
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.
21. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was stated
to be 34 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly applied the multiplier of 16 as per settled law.
22. A further scrutiny of the award shows that the deceased was stated to
be Rs.80,000/- per month by working as Agriculturist and was also running a
business of dairy farming. To substantiate the same, jamabandis Ex. C6 and Ex. C7
were placed on record. The claimants also examined CW4, Harish Chander, Tax
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 18
Assistant, Income Tax Office, Nabha, who produced and proved the income tax
returns (ITRs) of the deceased for the years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2018-2019,
and 2019-2020, exhibited as Ex. CW4/1 to Ex. CW4/4.
23. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal took into consideration only the
income tax return for the year 2018-2019 for calculating the compensation towards
cross objectors/claimants. However, it is trite law that the compensation should be
calculated by placing reliance on the latest ITR of the deceased.
24. Reference at this stage can be made to the recent judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors. 2025 INSC 526. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced below :-
“12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e., 12.08.2008, the
Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had not been filed, cannot
disadvantage the appellants, for the reason that the period for which
the Return is to be submitted covers the period starting 1s of April,
2007 and ending 31 March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the
Return would be only for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, and
date of submission would be post-31.03.2008. No income earned
beyond 31.03.2008 would reflect in the Income Tax Return for the
Assessment Year 2008-2009. To reject the Return on the sole ground
of its submission after the date of accident alone, in our considered
view, cannot be legally sustained.
13. The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible document on
which the income assessment of the deceased could be made. This
Court in Malarvizhi v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
SCC 228 affirmed that the determination of income must proceed on
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 19the basis of Income Tax Return(s), when available, being a statutory
document. In S Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182, we opined:
11. …It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable
evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof can
be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012)
11 SCC 738 [Para 17]; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 [Para 7], and K Ramya (supra)
[Para 14 of 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338]’
14. In Malarvizhi (supra), the Madras High Court relied upon the
Returns ‘for Assessment Year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and
2000-2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the
deceased’ therein.
15. The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal only on the ground that Return for the
Assessment Year 2008-2009 had to be excluded from consideration.
It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The
relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act,
for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year concerned,
and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax
Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years,
it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average
income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There
is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt
one of the afore-noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 20
legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present
case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way
where the rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare legislation
has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very
tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As pointed
out in Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563:
’13… In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Singamma. United india@
Insurance Co.Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘…
Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation
that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous
position of an individual which is essentially forwardlooking.
Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with
making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original
position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing
stability and continuity in peoples’ lives in the future.
25. In view of the above discussion and referred to judgment, this Court is
of the considered opinion that it would be just, proper and appropriate to place
reliance upon the Income Tax Returns of Assessment Year 2019-20 for the purpose
of determining the loss of income/contribution of the deceased to the family.
26. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal declined to award compensation to
the claimants/cross objectors towards the agricultural income of the deceased, on
the ground that they would inherit the land of the deceased and continue to enjoy
the benefits arising from the said agricultural land.
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 21
27. It is pertinent here to mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.
Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 AIR Supreme Court 4802, has held
that mere ownership of agricultural land is not sufficient to determine income, and
due consideration must be given to the fact that managerial skills, supervision, and
labour engagement are required to cultivate agricultural land. Therefore, having
regard to the attendant facts and circumstances, the income for the managerial skills
required for managing the agricultural property is justly reassessed at ₹7,000 per
month.
28. The relevant paras of K. Ramya‘s case (supra) are extracted as under:-
“21. Now, the sole issue which remains before this court is
whether the entire amount under `Income from House Property
and Agricultural Land’ should be deducted or not. In this
respect, we are guided by the observations of this court in State
of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC 484. wherein it was
noted that –
8. x-x-x-x
The land possessed by the deceased still remains with his
legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the
claimants may be required to engage persons to look after
agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the
deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases
where agricultural income is the source. Attendant
circumstances have to be considered.
(Emphasis Applied)
In our opinion, the abovementioned observations, though made
in the context of agricultural land, would also be applicable to
rent received from leased out properties as the loss of
dependency arises mainly out of loss of management capacity or
efficiency. As a rule of prudence, computation of any individual’s
managerial skills should lie between 10 to 15 per cent of the
GAURAV ARORA total rental income but the acceptable range can be increased in
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 22light of specific circumstances. The appropriate approach,
therefore, is to determine the value of managerial skills along
with any other factual considerations.
22. In the instant case, documents produced on record indicate
two salient aspects with respect to `Lakshmi Complex’, which
was the sole source of rental income for the deceased. The
partition deed related to the land on which the commercial
building is situated, highlights that the building was constructed
on account of the joint investment made by the Deceased and his
partners. Furthermore, as per the rental records, `Lakshmi
Complex’ was leased out to more than ten different commercial
entities. Hence, keeping in mind that – first, the rental amount
which is sought to be deducted partakes the character of
investment; and second, that the managerial skills required for
supervising the said building would require sophisticated
contract management skills and goodwill among the business
community, it is necessary that we determine the value of
managerial skills of the Deceased on the higher side.”
29. In the present case, the deceased, aged 34 years, was engaged in
agricultural pursuits as well as dairy business and had three dependants to support.
Considering the nature of employment, age, social background, and prevailing
wages at the relevant time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
Tribunal erred in assessing the total income of the deceased at ₹249850/- per
annum, which is grossly inadequate. By taking into consideration the ITR 2019-
2020 of the deceased and by keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances,
the total income of the deceased is reasonably reassessed at ₹23120/- per month
from business and Rs.7000/- per month for the managerial skills required for
managing the agricultural property for which the total comes to Rs.30120/-.
30. A perusal of the record further reveals that the learned Tribunal has
GAURAV ARORA
awarded a meager amount under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 23
consortium and funeral expenses, therefore, the award requires indulgence and
interference of this Court.
RELIEF
31. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross-objections filed by the cross-
objectors/respondents No.1 to 3 are allowed. The award dated 28.11.2023 is
modified accordingly. The cross-objectors/respondents No.1 to 3 are held entitled to
enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.30,120/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.12048/- (40% of 30120)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.14056/- (42168 X 1/3)
expenditure 1/3
4 Total Income Rs.28112/- (42168-14056)
5 Multiplier 16
6 Annual Dependency Rs.53,97,504/- (28112 X 12 X 16)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
9. Treatment expenses Rs.35000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200/-
Parental : 1 x 48,400
Spousal : 1 x 48,400
Filial : 1 x 48,400
10 Total Compensation Rs.56,14,004/-
11 Deduction Rs.38,43,000/-
Amount Awarded by the
Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.17,71,004/- (56,14,004-38,43,000)
32. 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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-665-2024 (O&M)
and Cross objection-27-2026 24
Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount enhanced calculated shall carry an interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of
realization.
33. Appellant-Insurance Company 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 learned Tribunal is directed to
disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the claimant
in the ratio awarded by the learned Tribunal.
34. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
09.04.2026
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes
GAURAV ARORA
2026.04.10 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document