Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pooja Devi And Ors on 23 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-3408
3408-2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC
XOBJC-56-CII-2017
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Pooja Devi and others ....Respondents
Reserved on : 20.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement:23.02.2026
Uploaded on : 24.02.2026
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. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate,
for the appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company (in FAO No. 3408-2016).
Mr. Pratham Bali, Advocate,
for respondent No. 5 and
for cross-objector (in X Objection No. 56-CII-2017)
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
FAO-3408-20
2016 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
11.04.2016
.04.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gurugram (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant/insurance
1 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -2-
company was held liable to pay the compensation at the first instance to the
claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.25,29,000/
Rs.25,29,000/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum with liberty to recover the same from respondent
Nos. 4 and 5, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher
side.
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017
2. The present cross-objections
objections have been preferred by cross–
objectors/claimants (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) against the award dated
11.04.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 16
166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal
Tribunal, for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the cross-objectors
cross objectors/claimants to the tune of
Rs.25,29,000/
,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of
Rishi Pal (deceased).
(deceased)
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross
cross–
objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors
claimants/cross objectors are arising out of the same
award dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO–
3408-2016 and XOBJC-56-CII-2017 are decided vide this common
judgment.
4. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal and cross
objection is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to bbe re-
e-
produced here for the sake of brevity.
2 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -3-
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company contends
that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. He further contends
that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs. 12000/- i.e on the higher side.
side He further contends that learned Tribunal
has wrongly awarded 50% towards
towards future prospects instead of 440%
0% as per
settled law since, the deceased was not a permanent employee. He further
contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1,00,0
Rs.1,00,000/- for
loss of love and affection. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be
allowed and compensation be reduced.
reduced
6. Per contra, learned counsel for
or the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/cross–
objectors/claimants 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-objections
cross objections be allowed and present appeal be
dismissed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121]
121],,
laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of
the same are as under:-
under:
3 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -4-“30.. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
personal
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having a considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that
where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one
one–
third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is
2 to 3, one-fourth
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family
members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth
fifth (1/5th
(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,
ses, 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.
lly. 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 sister
sisterss 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,
ant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
4 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -5-
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
earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one
one-third
third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third.
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
17 for 26 to 30 years, M
M-16
16 for 31 to
35 years, M-15
15 for 36 to 40 years, M
M-14
14 for 41 to 45 years, and
M-13
13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every
five years, that is, M-11
M 11 for 51 to 55 years, M
M-9
9 for 56 to 60
year M-77 for 61 to 65 years and M
years, M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
9. 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
163 A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 11988,
988,
on the following aspects:-
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;
5 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -6-
(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
self-employed
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
oss 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,
ndex, 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 unl
unless
ess the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind
6 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -7-
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 seemss 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
thee revisit should not be fact
fact-centric or quantum-centric.
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 th
three
ree 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 th
thee 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
tual salary should be read as actual salary less
tax.
59.4.. In case the deceased was self
self-employed
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
7 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -8-
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 year
yearss 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
rsonal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that
judgment.
59.7.. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8.. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively.
ly. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced
at the rate of 10% in every three years.
years.”
10. 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:-
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 is8 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -9-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
husband-wife
wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“company, society, cooperation, affect
affection,
ion, 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
ictions world
world-over
over have recognised that the
value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic
9 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -10-
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
onsortium 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 vvictims
ictims 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
rded 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 fili
filial
al
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.
11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was
33 years old at the time of the accident. The age of the deceased was not in
10 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -11-
dispute, therefore the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the dde-
e-
ceased as 33 years by placing on reliance upon PMR (Ex P6).
12. A perusal of the impugned aaward
ward further reveals that the
deceased was stated to be employee of Sunbeam Auto Pvt Limited Gurgaon
and his monthly income was stated to be Rs.20,000/
Rs.20,000/-.. To prove the income,
claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 examined PW3 Amitabh Mudgil Deputy
Manager of Sunbeam Auto Pvt Limited Gurgaon, who categorically deposed
that the deceased Rishi Pal was employed as trainee worker and his monthly
salary was Rs.16237/-.
Rs.16237/ . He further proved and testified the salary certificate
of the deceased (Ex P2 to P4).
P4). A perusal of the award further reveals that the
learned Tribunal fell into error by assessing the monthly income of the dde-
e-
ceased as Rs.12000/
s.12000/- without appreciating the testimony of PW3 and salary
certificate (Ex P2 to P4), which categorically proves the income of the dde-
e-
ceased was Rs.16,237/-
Rs.16, at the time of his death.
13. In view of the above discussion and evidence on record
record,, the
monthly income of the deceased Rishi Pal is taken at Rs.16,237 for the
purpose of determining compensation.
14. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant
appellant–
Insurance Company to the effect that the learned Tribunal has erred in aap-
p-
plying
ing future prospects to the tune of 50% instead of 40% is concerned, the
same is bereft of merits.
11 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -12-
15. It is trite law as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court New India
Assurance
ssurance Co. Ltd vs. Ashish Ravinder Kulkarni and others, 2023 ACJ 1997 ,
that in case of a person who is in regular service, a percentage higher than the one
stated in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
[(2017) 16 SCC 680], can also be awarded. The relevant extract of the same
is reproduced as under:-
under:
“7. It is also his case that the future prospects as reckoned
at 30% is not justified and the same should have been at
25% since the job of the deceased cannot be considered as
permanent employment. Lastly, it is contended the interest
as fixed by the High Court at 7.5% per annum is excessive
and is without appropriate reason being assigned.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
would however seek to sustain the judgment pa
passed by theHigh Court. On all the aspects which have been urged by
the learned counsel for the appellant, it is contended that
the MACT as well as the High Court have looked into the
evidence which was available before it and has thereafter
arrived at its conclusion, which does not call for interf
interfe-
rence.
9. In the light of the contentions put forth, insofar as the
salary, we take note that by way of clarification, we had
12 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -13-required the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
to point out that the amount
amount paid was after deduction ofthe tax or proof for payment of tax, since the learned cou
coun-sel for the appellant had contended that the same has not
been done. Along with an application, in addition to the
documents that were relied on before the MACT, the nnotice
of assessment of the Inland Revenue Authority of Sing
Singa-
pore is produced. From the same, it would indicate that
from the salary paid to the deceased, tax has been assessed
in Singapore. Hence, there is no scope for double taxation
on the same income. Therefore,
Therefore, deducting any amount tto-wards tax once over again would not arise. Hence, his sa
sal-
ary as reckoned by the High Court is justified and the
same does not call for interference.
10. On the aspect relating to the future prospects, having
noted the salary
salary that was being drawn by the deceased, wehave also taken into consideration that the deceased was
employed in TATA Precision Industries. Another employee
who was working as the Assistant Manager in Human R
Re-
sources had been examined as PW-
PW-2 before the MACT to
prove the same. In that regard, taking note of the evidence
tendered by PW-2
PW 2 to indicate the nature of employment of13 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -14-the deceased as also his prospects, we are of the opinion
that the future prospects as reckoned in the instant case is
also justified.
justified. This is for the reason that though the learned
counsel for the appellant seeks to point to the portion of
the cross-
cross examination of the said witness to indicate that
he had earlier been terminated from TATA Holset Private
Limited and had thereafter been appointed in TATA Prec
Preci-
sion Industries, it would not lead to a conclusion that the
job was not of permanent nature. In fact, even if the eem-
ployment letter indicated that the job could be terminated
with 30 days notice as insisted by the learned counsel, th
thatcannot be the basis in as much as the said provision for
termination notice would be available to both the parties,
namely the employer and the employee and that by itself
cannot indicate that the employment was of a temporary
nature. Right of the employer
employer to terminate does not suggestit is temporary employment. Such right if exercised has to
be in terms of law. Further, from the cross
cross-examination,the suggestion put to PW-2,
PW 2, would only indicate that thedeceased who was earlier employed in TATA Holset Pri-
vate Limited was thereafter taken in another sister concern
of the same group providing him better prospects. Ther
There-
14 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -15-fore even if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the ffu-
ture prospects as reckoned by the High Court is justified.”
16. Consequently,
y, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Su-
preme Court in Ashish Ravinder Kulkarni‘s case (supra), 50% addition made
by the learned Tribunal are upheld.
17. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has granted meagre amount under the heads of loss of consortium. More
Moreo-
o-
ver, no amount is awarded for loss of estate. Therefore, the award requires
indulgence of this Court.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross
cross-objections
objections filed by
the cross-objectors/respondents
objectors/respondents No.1 to 3 are allowed.. The award dated
11.04.2016 is modified accordingly. The cross
cross-objectors/respondents
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.
Rs.16237/-
2 Future prospects @ 50%
5 Rs.
Rs.8118/- (50% of 16237)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.
Rs.8118/- (24355 X 1/3)
expenditure 1/3
1/
15 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -16-
4 Total Income Rs.
Rs.16237/- (24235 – 8118)
5 Multiplier 16
6 Annual Dependency Rs.
Rs.31,17,504/- (16237 X 12 X 16
6)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.
Rs.25,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,2
Rs.1,20,000/-
Spousal : Rs.40000
Rs. x1
Filial : Rs. 40,000 x 1
Parental Rs. 40,000 x 1
Total Compensation Rs.
Rs.32,77,504/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.
Rs.25,29,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.
Rs.7,48,504/-
(Rs. 32,77,504- 25,29,000)
19. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the cross-objectors/
objectors/
claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
20. The appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is
directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with inter
interest
est in the
account of cross-objectors/respondents
cross objectors/respondents No.1 to 3 as per award. The cross–
16 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
FAO-3408-2016
2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-56-CII
CII-2017 -17-
objectors/ respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to furnish their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
21. Needless to say that appellant-Insurance
Insurance Company is entitled to
recover the enhanced amount of compensation from respondent No. 4 and 5
i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle as per award dated 11.04.2016..
22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
23.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 25-02-2026 22:06:49 :::
