Raghbir Singh And Ors vs Karamjit Singh And Ors on 22 April, 2026

    0
    39
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Punjab-Haryana High Court

    Raghbir Singh And Ors vs Karamjit Singh And Ors on 22 April, 2026

    Author: Sudeepti Sharma

    Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                  FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
                                                                    -1-
    
                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                                        AT CHANDIGARH
    
                                                                    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    
                  RAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS.
                                                                                          ......Appellants
                                                            vs.
    
                  KARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS.
                                                                                        ......Respondents
    
                                                                    Reserved on:- 21.04.2025
                                                                    Pronounced on:- 22.04.2026
                                                                    Uploaded on :- 29.04.2026
    
                  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:                 Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for
                                           Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate
                                           for the appellants.
    
                                           Mohd. Jameel, Advocate
                                           for respondent No.1.
    
                                           Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
                                           for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
    
                                           Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                                           for the respondent No.4.
    
                                           ****
    

    SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

    SPONSORED

    07.05.2015 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.7,00,000/- along with interest @7% per

    annum, on account of death of Dharampal Singh in a Motor Vehicular

    MOHD AYUB Accident, occurred on 17.04.2012.

    2026.04.29 17:05

    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -2-

    2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined

    to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

    narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced 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 counsels for respondents No.1 & 3, 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, they 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

    considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -3-

    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
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (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:-

    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and

    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -5-

    (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
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -6-

    fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of

    rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot

    remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule

    in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in

    determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is

    applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind

    of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders

    passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be

    unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable

    sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on

    conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of

    consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,

    Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of

    revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But

    the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.

    We think that it would be condign that the amount that we

    have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in

    every three years and the enhancement should be at the

    rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to

    hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of

    those heads.

    * * * * *

    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
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -7-

    and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The

    addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was

    between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between

    the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.

    Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

    59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a

    fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income

    should be the warrant where the deceased was below the

    age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased

    was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the

    deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be

    regarded as the necessary method of computation. The

    established income means the income minus the tax

    component.

    59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction

    for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the

    courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴

    which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

    59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in

    the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that

    judgment.

    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
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -8-

    should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000

    respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at

    the rate of 10% in every three years.”

    8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

    Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others

    [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi

    (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same

    are reproduced as under:-

    “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²

    dealt with the various heads under which compensation is

    to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss

    of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a

    compendious term which encompasses “spousal

    consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial

    consortium”. The right to consortium would include the

    company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and

    affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.

    With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations

    with the deceased spouse.

    21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights

    pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which

    allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of

    “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the

    other in every conjugal relation”.

    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and

    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -9-

    21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the

    premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,

    protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and

    training”.

    21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to

    compensation in the case of an accidental death of a

    child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes

    great shock and agony to the parents and family of the

    deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their

    child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their

    love, affection, companionship and their role in the family

    unit.

    22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing

    norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.

    Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the

    value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic

    value of the compensation awarded in the case of the

    death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit

    parents to be awarded compensation under loss of

    consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded

    to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,

    affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

    23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation

    aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,

    in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -10-

    lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the

    parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium

    under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium

    is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor

    vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have

    awarded compensation on this count. However, there was

    no clarity with respect to the principles on which

    compensation could be awarded on loss of filial

    consortium.

    24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as

    consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding

    compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in

    Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate

    to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an

    amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

    9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was

    stated to be 55 years of age at the time of the accident, which fact stands duly

    proved from the post-mortem report (PMR). Therefore, the learned Tribunal

    has rightly applied the multiplier of 11 as in accordance with settled law.

    10. A further scrutiny of the award shows that petitioners/appellants

    had deposed before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was Chairman of

    the Market Committee, Raikot and was owner of 33 acres of land.

    Petitioners/appellants further deposed that the deceased was also earning

    ₹1,00,000 per annum from agricultural activities. A copy of the jamabandi for

    the year 2007-08 has been proved on record as Ex.P-1 whereby, Dharampal
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -11-

    Singh (deceased) has been recorded to be co-owner in possession over land

    measuring 74 kanals 09 marlas; 1/6th share in land measuring 103 kanals 18

    marlas; 1/12th share in land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas.

    11. The learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the

    jamabandi but has erred in assessing the income of the deceased Dharampal

    Singh as Rs.7,000/- per month without considering the fact that managerial

    skills, supervision and labour engagement are required to cultivate

    agricultural land.

    12. It is pertinent here to mention that the 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, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the

    agricultural income at ₹7,000 per month, which is on the lower side.

    Accordingly, the agricultural income of the deceased is justly reassessed at

    ₹15,000 per month.

    13. 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
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -12-

    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 total rental income but
    the acceptable range can be increased in light 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
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -13-

    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.”

    14. Further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has

    erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the

    deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and the fact that four

    dependents were dependent upon his earnings, a deduction of 1/4th ought to

    have been made, in accordance with the settled law.

    15. Additionally, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any amount

    towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law laid down by the

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), and subsequent

    authoritative pronouncements. The claimants/appellants are, therefore,

    entitled to addition of 10% towards future prospects.

    16. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount

    under the conventional head of loss of consortium and no amount has been

    awarded under the head of Loss of Estate and higher amount has been

    awarded under the head of funeral expenses, therefore, the award requires

    indulgence of this Court.

    CONCLUSION

    17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

    the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award

    dated 07.05.2015 is modified accordingly. The appellants-claimants and

    proforma respondent No.4 are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the

    calculations made hereunder:-

    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and

    authenticity of this order/judgment.

                   FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
                                                                      -14-
    
                               Sr. No.                     Heads                     Compensation Awarded
                                     1      Monthly Income                    Rs.15,000/-
                                     2      Future prospects @ 10%            Rs.1,500/- (10% of 15000)
                                     3      Deduction towards        personal Rs.4,125/- (16,500 X 1/4)
                                            expenditure 1/4
    
                                     4      Total Income                      Rs.12,375/- (16,500-4,125)
    
                                     5      Multiplier                        11
                                     6      Annual Dependency                 Rs.16,33,500/- (12,375 X 12 X 11)
                                     7      Loss of Estate                    Rs.15,000/-
                                     8      Funeral Expenses                  Rs.15,000/-
                                     9      Loss of Consortium                Rs.1,60,000/-
                                            Parental : 2 x 40,000
                                            Spousal : 1 x 40,000
                                            Filial : 1 x 40,000
                                    10      Total                             Rs.18,23,500/-
    
    
                                    11      Deduction                      Rs.7,00,000/-
                                            Amount Awarded by the Tribunal
    
                                    12      Enhanced amount                   Rs.11,23,500/- (18,23,500-7,00,000)
    
    
    

    18. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble

    Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma

    2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport

    Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants

    and proforma respondent No.4 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.

    19. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is 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 and proforma respondent No.4 in their bank account as per ratio
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.

    FAO-247-2016 (O&M)
    -15-

    settled in award dated 07.05.2015. The appellants-claimants and proforma

    respondent No.4 are directed to furnish their bank account details to the

    Tribunal.

    20. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    
    
    
                  22.04.2026                                                (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
                  Ayub/Saahil                                                    JUDGE
    
                                           Whether speaking/non-speaking :        Yes/No
                                           Whether reportable           :         Yes
    
    
    
    
    MOHD AYUB
    2026.04.29 17:05
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this order/judgment.
    



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here