Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Kaur And Ors vs Parveen Kumar And Or S on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M)
KULDEEP KAUR AND ORS.
......Appellants
vs.
PARVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.
......Respondents
Reserved on:- 01.04.2025
Pronounced on:- 17.04.2026
Uploaded on :- 22.04.2026
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. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
15.05.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kapurthala in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted
to the claimants to the tune of Rs.21,03,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -2-
annum, on account of death of Pooran Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident,
occurred on 16.11.2012.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the
sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants 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 appeal be allowed and
amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, however,
vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of
compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted.
Therefore, he pray for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121],
laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of
the same are as under:-
“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the
basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -3-
considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we
are of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)
where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6,
and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family
members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting
married in a short time, in which event the contribution to
the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered
as a dependant and the mother alone will be 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
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -4-
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.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the
law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on
the following aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to
determine multiplicand;
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -5-
(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 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
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -6-
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
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -7-
the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that
judgment.
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.”
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -8-
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others
[2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi
(Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same
are reproduced as under:-
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²
dealt with the various heads under which compensation is
to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss
of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses “spousal
consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“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”.
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -9-
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the family
unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the
value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic
value of the compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
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
MOHD AYUB
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -10-
awarded compensation on this count. However, there was
no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in
Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate
to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an
amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.
9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was
stated to be about 54 years of age at the time of the accident and was working
as Science teacher and stated to be earning Rs.47,123/- per month
(Ex.AW3/1), which comes to Rs.46,123/- by deducting the income tax of the
deceased.
10. Further perusal of the award reveals that learned Tribunal has
erred in applying split multiplier on the premise that the deceased was about
to retire and has not taken into consideration two different income of the
deceased. Reliance at this stage can be made upon Preetha Krishnan & Anr.
v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2025 INSC 1293, wherein it has been
categorically held that the concept of split multiplier is alien to proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act and cannot be applied while determining
compensation. The Apex Court observed that the multiplier has to be selected
strictly in accordance with the age of the deceased (or the claimant, as
applicable) as laid down in the structured formula and reiterated in
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -11-
authoritative pronouncements, without bifurcation of the multiplier on
speculative considerations.
11. The relevant para of Preeta Krishnan‘s case (supra) is
reproduced as under:-
“18. The judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge
in the impugned judgment, i.e., K.R. Madhusudhan v.
Administrative Officer and Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana
Reddy & Ors. , in our considered view, does not support
the use of a split multiplier. In both these judgments, this
Court has held that there have to be cogent reasons
recorded for its use. As already observed above, retirement
from service is not ‘out of the ordinary’, ‘exceptional’ and
‘cogent’ for the same to qualify. It is also, a matter of
considerable difficulty to conceive what such cogent or
exceptional circumstances may be. In any event, the
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) had, in para
59.7 observed that the age of the deceased is the criterion
to be utilized for multiplier. It does not provide for any
other possibilities. This, in our considered view, does not
even leave open the possibility of employment of split
multiplier, whatsoever. As such, when dealing with a
beneficial legislation which relies on just compensation as
its bedrock, it is most prudent to tread the path of certainty,
insofar as practicable. This is more so important in the
context of age which is the primary basis for computation
of compensation. In other words, split multiplier is a
concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not
to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation of
the compensation.”
12. In view of the settled legal position, the application of a split
multiplier by the learned Tribunal is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -12-
unsustainable in law and the computation of compensation on that basis
deserves to be set aside.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sushila and others Vs. Sudhakar and another, Civil Appeal No.004213-
004213 – 2026, decided on 10.03.2026 has held that the annual income of the
deceased would be calculated on the basis of his monthly last drawn salary
and the multiplier is always determined on the annual income of the deceased
so to ensure uniformity and consistency in the calculation of motor accident
claim cases.
14. The relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:-
“21.This Court in the judgment of Helen C. Rebello and
others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
and another, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90, while dealing
with the question of ascertaining the permissible
deductions that could be made while awarding
compensation in Motor Accident Claim cases, held that the
general principles of common law to estimate damages
cannot be invoked for calculating the compensation under
the M. V. Act. Recently, in the judgment of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamlesh and Others, reported in
2025 INSC 724, this Court while relying upon the
judgment in the case of Helen C. Rebello (supra) opined
that the compensation under the M.V. Act takes into
account the component of loss of income which has a
direct reference to the “pay and wages” that the deceased
would otherwise be entitled to had the accident not
occurred or the deceased survived such an accident.
22.In the case at hand before us, both the Tribunal as well
as the High Court had made a deduction of 50% from the
salary of the deceased on account the fact that only 6
months of service of the deceased was remaining. In our
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -13-
considered opinion, the Courts below have erred in coming
to such an unreasonable conclusion. In the light of the
authorities cited above, it is clear that any deduction which
is not related to the accident, is impermissible in law.
Additionally, as per settled law in the case of Sarla
Verma‘s case (supra), the multiplicand is always
determined on the basis of the “annual” income of the
deceased so as to ensure uniformity and consistency in the
calculation of motor accident claim cases. The fact that the
deceased had only six months of service left does not cast
any aspersion on the fact that had the accident not
occurred, the deceased would have been in service and
earn commensurate to the last drawn income before the
death. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would
be calculated on the basis of his monthly last drawn salary.
23.Thus, while deciding Issue No. 1, we are of the opinion
that no deduction ought to have been made from the salary
of the deceased on account of duration of service left. The
Tribunal rightly assessed the ₹ net salary of the deceased
to be 25,415/- per month and the same would be
considered for the computation of loss of income.”
15. Therefore, by placing on reliance upon the above referred to
judgment, the assessment so made by learned Tribunal is legally
unsustainable and warrants reassessment by applying the appropriate
multiplier of 11 on the basis of last drawn salary of the deceased, which is
Rs.46,123/-.
16. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by
deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which
is not in consonance with the settled law.
17. Furthermore, the learned tribunal has committed an error by
MOHD AYUB considering that the children would become self-dependent in due course is
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -14-
again based on conjecture and cannot be a valid ground to curtail the
dependency, thereby resulting in an unjust and inadequate assessment of
compensation.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
its recent pronouncement titled as Sadhna Tomar and others Vs. Ashok
Kushwaha and others, 2025 SCC online SC 554, has categorically clarified
the scope and ambit of the term ‘Legal Representatives’. The Court held that
legal representatives are not confined merely to those who inherit the estate of
the deceased but extend to all persons who suffer on account of death of the
deceased, including those financially dependent upon him. The relevant
portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
“13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v.
Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the
objective of granting compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair
compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. Another
question which arose for our consideration, as for the
purpose of loss of dependency, the deduction of annual
income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as there are five
claimants. The Tribunal did not consider appellant Nos.4
and 5, namely, the father and the younger sister,
respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating therein
that the father was not dependent on the income of the
deceased and since the father is alive, the younger sister is
also not dependent on the income of the deceased. This
Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
[(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal representative is
one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a
motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife,
husband, parent or child.
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -15-
14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712],
this Court observed that:
“16. In our view, the term “legal representative”
should be given a wider interpretation for the
purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should
not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and
children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV
Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object
of providing monetary relief to the victims or their
families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal
and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose
underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative
intent. We are also of the view that in order to
maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the
claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section
166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal
representative who suffers on account of the death of
a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a
remedy for realisation of compensation.”
19. In view of the judgment referred to above and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the major sons of the deceased clearly falls within
the definition of legal representatives and, therefore, must be treated as
dependents and are held entitled to the compensation.
20. A further perusal of the award reveals that the amount granted
under the head of loss of consortium is on the lower side. Furthermore, the
learned Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects, which is
contrary to the settled law, therefore, 15% should be awarded towards future
prospects as per the settled law.
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -16-
21. Furthermore, no amount has been granted under the
conventional heads of loss of estate funeral expenses are on the lower side,
which is contrary to the settled law. Therefore, the impugned award warrants
interference and indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
22. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award
dated 15.05.2014 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.46,123/-
2 Future prospects @ 15% Rs.6,918/- (15% of 46,123)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.17,680/- (53,041 X 1/3)
expenditure 1/3
4 Total Income Rs.35,361/- (53,041-17,680)
5 Multiplier 11
6 Annual Dependency Rs.46,67,652/- (35,361 X 12 X 11)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
Parental : 2 x 40,000
Spousal : 1 x 40,000
10 Total Rs.48,17,652/-
11 Deduction Rs.21,03,000/-
Amount Awarded by the
Tribunal
12 Enhanced amount Rs.27,14,652/- (48,17,652-21,03,000)
23. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-9852-2014 (O&M) -17-
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-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.
24. The respondents (jointly and severally) are directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellants-
claimants in their bank account as per ratio settled in award dated 15.05.2014.
The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to
the Tribunal.
25. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
17.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes
MOHD AYUB
2026.04.22 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
