Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita And Ors vs Tinku And Ors on 25 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M)
Smt. Sunita and others ....Appellants
Vs.
Tinku and others ....Respondents
Reserved on : 22.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026
Uploaded on : 05.03.2026
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. Surinder Kumar Daaria, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
05.08.2024 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 and 140 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jind (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation
granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.8,53,500/- (i.e half of
Rs.17,06,000/- on account of contributory negligence of the deceased) along
with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of death of Ram Niwas in a
Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 14.10.2022 as well as making
appellant liable for contributory negligence.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -2-
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Niwas (since deceased) was
employed as a Mechanic Operator with Laxmi Enterprises, situated near
Police Post, Hansi Road, Jind. On 14.10.2022 at about 09:00 PM, he was
proceeding to his workplace to perform night shift duty on his motorcycle
bearing registration No. HR-08V-8740. His nephew, Sunil Kumar, was also
travelling with him and alighted from the motorcycle at Hansi Flyover,
Patiala Chowk, Jind. Thereafter, when Ram Niwas was ascending the
flyover, a truck bearing registration No. HR-45C-4160 (hereinafter referred
to as “the offending vehicle”) was moving ahead of his motorcycle. It is
alleged that respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, while
driving in a rash and negligent manner in the middle of the road, suddenly
applied brakes without any signal or indication. As a result thereof, the
motorcycle of the deceased struck against the rear of the offending vehicle,
causing grievous injuries to him. On receiving information, Sunil Kumar
rushed to the spot. However, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away
from the scene after the accident. Sunil Kumar noted down the registration
number of the truck and shifted Ram Niwas to Civil Hospital, Jind, where he
was declared dead. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead
body of the deceased. In respect of the accident in question, FIR No. 0539
dated 15.10.2022 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police
Station City, Jind on the statement of Sunil Kumar.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and
filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -3-
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
“1. Whether the accident in question was caused on
14.10.2022 at about 09:30 PM in the area of near
Patiala Chowk, Jind due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1 while driving vehicle bearing
registration No.HR-45C-4160 resulting into death of
Ram Niwas son of Amar Singh, as alleged? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are
entitled to any compensation and if so to, what extent and
from whom? OPP.
3. Whether there is violation of any terms and conditions of
the insurance policy? OPR (Insurance Company).
4. Relief.”
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
appellants/claimants. However, 50% of the compensation was awarded to
the appellants/claimants on account of contributory negligence of the
deceased. Hence the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the
amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to
be enhanced. Further that learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that
accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased
(50% of the driver of the offending vehicle and 50% of the deceased-Ram
Niwas). Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -4-
contributory negligence be set aside. The compensation be enhanced as per
latest law and the Insurance Company be held liable to pay full
compensation to the appellants/claimants.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company,
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. He further submits that learned Tribunal has rightly held that
the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased-Ram Niwas, as he failed to maintain a sufficient distance while
coming from behind the offending vehicle. Therefore, he prays for dismissal
of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award.
The same is reproduced as under:-
“ISSUE NO.1:
10. Onus to prove this issue lies upon petitioners. To
prove the same, petitioners have examined Sunil Kumar,
who had witnessed the accident, as PW2. He tendered in
evidence his affidavit Ex.PW2/A in terms of Order 18
Rule 4 CPC and deposed that on 14.10.2022, his uncle
Ram Niwas (since deceased) was going to his company
for doing night shift duty on motorcycle bearing
registration No.HR-08V-8740 and he was also travelling
on his motor-cycle with him. At about 09:30 PM, when
they reached Flyover, Hansi Road, Jind, he alighted from
the motorcycle. When his uncle Ram Niwas was going on
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -5-
the flyover while driving his motorcycle, a Truck bearing
registration No.HR-45C-4160 was going ahead of him
and respondent No.1 while driving the same in the
middle of the road and in a rash and negligent manner
suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which, motorcycle
of his uncle struck against it and he died. He lodged FIR
No.0539 dated 15.10.2022 at Police Station City, Jind,
regarding the accident in question. He further deposed
that the accident in question had taken place solely due
to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent
No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. During cross-
examination, he admitted that the offending Truck was
going at a moderate speed ahead of motorcycle being
driven by his uncle. Police had recorded his statement in
Civil Hospital, Jind on 14.10.2022. Nothing to shatter his
veracity could be elicited during his cross examination
and his stand has remained consistent throughout.
11. Besides this, petitioners have tendered in evidence
FIR bearing No.0539 dated 15.10.2012, under Sections
279 and 304-A IPC, Police Station City, Jind Ex.P12
which was lodged on the statement of PW2 Sunil Kumar
Ex.P11 and similar facts have been mentioned in the FIR
as reiterated by him. The registration number of the
offending vehicle has been mentioned in the FIR. As
such, contents of the FIR corroborate the testimony of
PW2 Sunil Kumar. After registration of FIR, the matter
was thoroughly investigated and the police came to the
conclusion that the accident in question took place with
truck bearing registration No.HR45C-4160 which was
being driven by respondent No.1. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer had arrested respondent No.1 on
18.11.2022 itself and before arresting him, he had served
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -6-
notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.P21
upon respondent No.2, who is the registered owner of the
offending vehicle and he replied that his cousin Tinku
was driving the offending Truck on the day of accident.
The Investigating Officer had also taken into possession
the offending Truck alongwith its RC, Driving Licence
and insurance policy vide recovery memo Ex.P22. The
motorcycle alongwith its documents was also taken into
possession vide recovery memo Ex.P19. Thereafter, both
the vehicles were got mechanically examined vide
mechanical examination reports Ex.P25 which shows
that the visor, headlight and front mudguards of
motorcycle were found damaged and its handle and front
number plate were found bent whereas the right rear
bumper of the offending truck was also found bent.
Respondents No.1 and 2 stepped into witness-box as RW1
and RW2 respectively and they have tendered their
affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A and deposed that no
accident took place with vehicle bearing registration
No.HR-45C-44160 and respondent No.1 had not caused
the accident but during cross-examination, respondent
No.1 admitted that he is facing criminal trial and charge
has been framed against him. He further admitted that he
never raised any objection against his arrest in the
criminal case and he has not made any complaint to any
higher authority regarding registration of criminal case
against him. RW2 Deepak also admitted during his cross-
examination that he had received notice under Section
133 of the Act. He explained that the offending vehicle
and its driver were present with him at his home.
However, he did not state anything in his examination-in-
chief that he has ever filed any complaint regarding false
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -7-
implication of his vehicle and its driver i.e.respondent
No.1 in the criminal case. In these circumstances, their
version can not be believed particularly because they
have put-forth two contradictory versions.
12. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance
Company argued that even if the version of petitioners
and the testimony of PW2 Sunil Kumar is believed to be
true, it is not established that the accident in question
took place on account of rash and negligent driving on
the part of respondent No.1. Rather, the deceased struck
against the truck going ahead of his motorcycle from
behind resulting into the accident and consequently, his
death whereas the deceased was supposed to maintain a
proper distance from the truck going ahead of the
motorcycle so that he could have avoided the accident in
the event of truck driver applying the brakes. As such, it
appears that the motorcycle was being driven very close
to the truck and when the truck driver applied brakes,
respondent No.1 could not control his motorcycle and
struck against the truck from behind resulting in his
death and in these circumstances, accident in question
has taken place solely on account of rash and negligent
driving on the part of deceased himself.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioners
argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was going
ahead of the ill-fated motorcycle, who without giving any
signal applied sudden brakes without any reason, as a
result of which the ill-fated motorcycle rammed into the
offending vehicle from behind resulting in the death of
Ram Niwas. There are no speed brakers or any cut on the
flyover and as such application of sudden brakes without
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -8-
any reason proves rash and negligent driving on the part
of respondent no.1.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that accident in question has taken
place due to contributory negligence of truck driver as
well as deceased himself.
15. While appearing as PW2, Sunil Kumar deposed
that his uncle Ram Niwas while driving his motor-cycle
was going on Flyover, Hansi Road, Jind and the
offending truck was also going ahead of his motorcycle.
However, respondent No.1 suddenly applied brakes in
the middle of the road, as a result of which, the
motorcycle of his uncle struck against it and the accident
took place. During during cross-examination, he
admitted that truck bearing registration No.HR-45C-
4160 was going on its correct side ahead of the
motorcycle of his uncle and the speed of the offending
truck was moderate. Copy of site plan of the place of
occurrence has been tendered in evidence as Ex.P18
which shows that accident in question had taken place at
point-A and the non-offending vehicle rammed in the
truck while the vehicles were going towards Hansi side.
It is a matter of common knowledge that vehicles move at
a higher speed on Jind-Hansi road and sudden
application of brakes in the middle of the road by the
driver of offending vehicle going ahead without any
reason appears to be the main cause of the accident. No
doubt, deceased too should have maintained proper
distance from the vehicle going ahead of him but this fact
alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that he
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -9-
was solely responsible for the accident and rather, driver
of the offending vehicle too has contributed to the
accident by applying sudden brakes and they both have
equally contributed to the accident.
16. Copy of postmortem report of Ram Niwas has been
led in evidence as Ex.P16 which shows that postmortem
examination was conducted on 15.10.2022 at Civil
Hospital, Jind and he had suffered lacerated wound over
forehead and underlying Y shape fracture was seen
involving parietal and frontal bone. Besides this, he had
also suffered fracture nasal septum, fracture mandible,
fracture right patella, fracture left distal femur and
fracture right and left ribs and sternal angle.
Accordingly, it is established that deceased died on
account of injuries to vital organs like brain, lungs and
heart, which were antemortem in nature and sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and from the
evidence on file, it is conclusively proved that the
accident in question resulting in death of Ram Niwas
took place on account of rash and negligent driving on
the part of respondent no.1 as well as deceased Ram
Niwas himself and as such, respondent No.1 as well as
deceased are equally responsible for the accident to the
extent of 50%-50% and compensation to be awarded to
the petitioners shall thus be deducted by 50%. This issue
is accordingly decided partly in favour of petitioners and
partly in favour of respondents”
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -10-
10. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that learned Tribunal
has fallen into manifest error in concluding that the accident in question
occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers.
11. The finding of contributory negligence is not borne out from
the evidence available on record. PW-2 Sunil Kumar, eye-witness to the
occurrence, categorically deposed that the offending truck was being driven
in a rash and negligent manner and that, while proceeding ahead of the
motorcycle driven by the deceased, the driver of the truck suddenly applied
brakes in the middle of the flyover without any warning or justifiable cause.
As a result thereof, the motorcycle rammed into the rear of the truck, leading
to the fatal injuries sustained by Ram Niwas. The testimony of PW-2 is
clear, cogent and consistent. Nothing material could be elicited in his cross-
examination so as to discredit his presence at the spot or to impeach his
credibility. His deposition inspires confidence and is duly corroborated by
the prompt lodging of the FIR and the attendant circumstances on record.
12. It has also come in evidence that there were no speed breakers,
intersections or obstructions on the flyover which could have necessitated
sudden application of breaks. In such circumstances, abrupt application of
brakes by a heavy vehicle in the middle of a flyover, without signal or
reason, constitutes a negligent act, particularly when another vehicle is
following in the same direction. The mere fact that the motorcycle struck the
truck from behind cannot, ipso facto, lead to a presumption of negligence on
the part of the deceased. Each case must be decided on its own facts and on
the basis of positive evidence rather than conjecture.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -11-
13. Significantly, FIR was registered promptly against the driver of
the offending truck, and after due investigation, the police filed a report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. indicting him for offences arising out of rash and
negligent driving. The charge-sheet reflects that the investigating agency,
upon evaluation of the material collected, found sufficient grounds to
prosecute the driver of the truck.
14. On the other hand, the driver of the offending truck, apart from
entering the witness box and making a bald denial, did not lead any
independent oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the plea that the
accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The Insurance
Company also failed to adduce any cogent material in support of its plea of
contributory negligence. A mere assertion, unsupported by substantive
evidence, cannot form the basis for recording a finding that results in
reduction of just compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased.
15. It is trite that the burden to establish contributory negligence
lies squarely upon the party alleging it. In Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma
Mohan, 2013 (9) SCC 166 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the
absence of direct or reliable evidence, it would be impermissible to
apportion negligence merely on surmises. The said principle was reiterated
in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, 2015 (1) SCC 339, wherein it was
observed that negligence cannot be inferred on conjectures or solely on the
basis of the nature of impact, without substantive proof establishing fault on
both sides.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -12-
16. In the present case, the Tribunal appears to have presumed
contributory negligence primarily on the reasoning that the deceased ought
to have maintained a proper distance from the vehicle moving ahead. While
maintaining safe distance is undoubtedly a rule of prudence, its breach
cannot be presumed in the absence of evidence demonstrating rashness or
want of due care on the part of the deceased. The material on record does not
disclose any act or omission attributable to the deceased which could be said
to have contributed to the occurrence. The finding of equal apportionment of
negligence is thus founded on speculation rather than proof.
17. It is further noteworthy that no specific issue with regard to
contributory negligence was framed by the learned Tribunal. In M. Nithya
v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. arising out of SLP(C)-833-834 of 2023
decided on 03.01.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held
that where no issue on contributory negligence is framed and no evidence is
led in support thereof, it would be impermissible to reduce compensation on
such a plea. The ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of
the present case, rendering the finding of contributory negligence
procedurally unsustainable as well.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled principles
governing adjudication of motor accident claims, the finding recorded by the
learned Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the deceased is
perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The same cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly held that the accident in
question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -13-
offending truck by respondent No.1, and the claimants are entitled to
compensation without any deduction on account of alleged contributory
negligence.
19. Adverting now to the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants qua compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is
concerned, the same is decided as under after taking into consideration
settled law.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant
paras of the same are as under:-
“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having a considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that
where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-
third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is
2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family
members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependent family members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -14-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 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.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -15-
21. 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;
(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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -16-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, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that
we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage
basis in every three years and the enhancement should be
at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency
in respect of those heads.
* * * * *
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should beVIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -17-15%. 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.”
22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same are reproduced as under:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -18-
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²
dealt with the various heads under which compensation
is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is
loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses “spousal
consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
“company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation”.
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that
the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -19-
economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore
permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the
parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium
is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count. However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as
laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem
it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.”
23. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was
45 years of age at the time of the accident, which fact stands duly proved
from the Post Mortem Report (PMR) of the deceased, Exhibit P-16,
therefore, multiplier of 14 would be applicable in the present case.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -20-
24. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was
stated to be working as a Machine Operator in Laxmi Enterprises and his
monthly income was asserted to be Rs.30,000/-. It further transpires that no
documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants/claimants
to substantiate the said assertion regarding income.
25. It is also evident that the learned Tribunal, despite the absence
of proof of income, proceeded to assess the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.10,243/- by placing reliance upon the minimum wages. The said
approach, however, suffers from material infirmity.
26. It is a settled position of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav & Ors., reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, that in cases where
there is no documentary evidence of income, the minimum wages
notification may be adopted as a guiding factor, but the same cannot be
treated as an inflexible or absolute standard. The Apex Court has further
held that a reasonable amount of guesswork, based on the facts and
circumstances of each case, is permissible and indeed necessary while
assessing the income of the deceased.
27. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, and keeping in
mind the nature of employment, age of the deceased, and the overall facts
and circumstances of the present case, it would be just, fair, and reasonable
to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- for the purpose
of determining compensation.
28. A perusal of the award further reveals that the amounts awarded
under the conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of
consortium are not in consonance with the settled legal position and require
appropriate enhancement.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -21-
CONCLUSION
29. 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 05.08.2024 is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.12,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.3,000/- (25% of 12,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.3,750/- (15,000 X 1/4th)
expenditure 1/4th
4 Total Income Rs.11,250/-(15,000-3,750)
5 Multiplier 14
6 Annual Dependency Rs.18,90,000/- (11,250 X 12
X 14)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150 /-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
Filail : Rs. 48,400/-x2
Spousal : Rs. 48,400/-x1
Parental : Rs. 48,400/-x1
10 Total Compensation Rs.21,19,900/-
11 Deduction Rs.8,53,500/-
Amount Awarded by the
Tribunal on account of 50%
contributory negligence of the
deceased
12 Enhanced Amount bereft of Rs.12,66,400/-
contributory negligence (Rs.21,19,900 - Rs.8,53,500)
30. 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 Nandu State
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3615-2025 (O&M) -22-
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.
31. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal
(excluding the period of delay of 95 days in filing the appeal) within a
period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The
Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along
with interest in the accounts of the appellants/claimants, as per award dated
05.08.2024. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their bank
account details to the Tribunal.
32. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
25.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Virender JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.05 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
