IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 242 FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) Decided on : 27.07.2026 BALJINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS JAGJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants [wife, minor sons (2) and mother] seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 01.03.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellants-claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- on account of death of Jaswinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 30.09.1998 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving Maruti car bearing registration No.CH-01V-0166 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross- objection challenging finding of negligence has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) -2- accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 3. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation to appellant-claimants: Income Rs.1,500/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 12 Loss of dependency Rs.1,44,000/- (1,000X12X12) Total compensation Rs.1,44,000/- 4. Appellants-claimants have sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that:- ● Learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the claimants. ● That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier, despite the fact that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. ● That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled principles of law. ● That no addition towards future prospects has been made while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects ought to have been added, as the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. ● Learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and appropriate compensation under the conventional heads, namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal, parental, and filial consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) -3- 5. Appellant-claimants had claimed that the deceased was 25 years old and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working in a factory. In order to prove pleaded income and vocation of deceased, appellants-claimants had only relied upon self-serving oral assertions and had not placed reliance on any cogent and reliable evidence, which may show that deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, in these circumstances minimum wages ought to have been taken by learned Tribunal for determining income of deceased. In present case, learned Tribunal has taken income of deceased to be Rs.1,500/- per month, whereas minimum wages payable to unskilled worker in the year 1998 when the accident had taken place were Rs.1,641/-. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1641/- per month. Since deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident, he would be entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 and keeping in view of age of deceased to be 25 years, multiplier of ‘18’ would be applicable as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121. Similarly, deduction towards personal expenses has to be applied on the basis of number of dependents which are four in present case i.e. wife, two minor sons and mother. Accordingly, deduction to the extent of 1/4rd shall be applicable. 6. The loss of dependency, therefore, has to be determined by taking monthly income of deceased to be Rs.1,641/- by applying future prospects to the extent of 40%, multiplier of ‘18’ and by making deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) -4- 7. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants- claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellants-claimants No.2 and 4 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Appellant-claimant No.3 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants-claimants, appellant-claimants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 8. Reworked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as under:- Income Rs.1,641/- per month Rs.1,641/- per month Future Prospects 40% (1,641+656) Rs.2,297/- Deduction 1/4th (2,297-574) Rs.1,723/- Multiplier 18 18 Total loss of dependency 1,723X18X12 Rs.3,72,168/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) -5- Loss of spousal consortium to appellant-claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to appellants-claimants No.2 and 4 Rs.40,000 X 2 Rs.80,000/- Loss of filial consortium to appellant-claimant No.3 Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,44,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.5,62,168/- Enhanced compensation Rs.5,62,168/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.1,44,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.4,18,168/- 9. In present case, perusal of finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.2 goes to show that learned Tribunal had found that respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence and had accordingly absolved the respondent-Insurance Company from paying the compensation or indemnifying the owner of offending vehicle and left appellants-claimants to get compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and by virtue of its provisions, SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) -6- especially in view of mandatory requirement that vehicles must be driven on the road, only with valid insurance policy, a reasonable expectation arises in the mind of victim in motor vehicular accidents that their claims shall be taken care of by insurance company as vehicle involved in the accident would be insured with the insurance company. For this reason, wherever insurance company was found not liable to indemnify owner of insured vehicle, it was directed to pay the compensation at the first instance and then get it recovered from respondent-driver/respondent-owner along with interest. Unfortunately, in present case, the learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration this aspect of the case and till date despite passing of award dated 01.03.2001, no amount has been paid by respondents No.1 and 2 to the appellants-claimants. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.3-Insurance Company to pay the compensation to appellants-claimants and thereafter get the same recovered along with interest from respondents No.1 and 2. 10. The arguments on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company that 25 years have passed since the date of passing of award dated 01.03.2001, therefore, it would not be appropriate as appellants-claimants have not raised this issue in their grounds of appeal. 11. On consideration, I do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. In fact, appellants-claimants are not challenging the findings of learned Tribunal as regards to issue No.2. Their only grievance is that the learned Tribunal had not applied the beneficial nature of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while absolving the respondent No.3-Insurance Company which is an error SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2664-2001 (O&M) -7- committed by learned Tribunal, therefore, same needs to be corrected by this Court. Accordingly, it is held that compensation shall initially be paid by respondent No.3-Insurance Company to the appellants-claimants and thereafter respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to recover the entire compensation amount (i.e. amount paid to claimants including interest cost etc.) along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of payment to the appellants- claimants till its realization from respondent No.1 and 2. 12. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation (except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional head shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 13. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.29 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document