Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5965-2002 Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Smt. Ram Ra and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Prerna Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is a claimants’ appeal directed against the award dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, limited to the aspect of quantum of compensa on.
2. The unfortunate motor vehicular accident occurred on 13.01.2001, resul ng in the death of Virender @ Sonu, aged 20 years, who was admi:edly unmarried. The claim pe on under Sec on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by his parents seeking compensa on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. The learned Tribunal, while allowing the claim pe on, awarded a lump sum compensa on of ₹1,25,000/- without undertaking any structured computa on of loss of dependency on the basis of assessed income, mul plier or future prospects.
4. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement.
5. The only ques on that arises for considera on is whether the compensa on assessed by the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
se:led principles governing determina on of just compensa on under Sec on 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. It is undisputed that the deceased was 20 years of age and was a student. There is no evidence of actual earnings. In such circumstances, the income is required to be determined on a no onal basis, keeping in view the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant me.
7.
Learned counsel for the insurer fairly submits that the minimum wages in Haryana for an unskilled worker in the year 2001 were ₹1,964/- per month, which posi on is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as ₹1,964/-, and the annual income works out to ₹23,568/-. 9. The Cons tu on Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, has authorita vely se:led that in the case of a deceased below 40 years of age, 40% of the established income is to be added towards future prospects, even in cases of no onal or fixed income. 10. Applying the said principle, 40% of ₹23,568/- is required to be added. ADer such addi on, the annual income comes to ₹32,995.2/-. 11. The deceased was unmarried. The law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, provides that in the case of death of an unmarried person, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as ordinarily the contribu on to the family would be half of the earnings. Further, as clarified in the said judgment, ordinarily only the mother would be considered dependent in the absence of specific evidence showing dependency of the father. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
12. In the present case, it is fairly conceded that there is no evidence to establish financial dependency of the father, who was 45 years of age at the me of accident. 13. Thus, aDer deduc ng 50% towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to ₹16,497.6/-. 14. For a deceased aged 20 years, the appropriate mul plier, as per the table approved in Sarla Verma’s case and consistently followed thereaDer, is 18. 15. Applying mul plier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to ₹16,497.6 × 18 = ₹2,96,957/- (rounded off). 16. The accident occurred in the year 2001. Keeping in view the principles governing conven onal heads as crystallized in Pranay Sethi’s case, and considering the period of accident, a sum of ₹15,000/- each is awarded to both the parents towards loss of parental consor um.
Further, ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. 17. Thus, the total compensa on is computed as under: Loss of dependency: ₹2,96,957/- Parental consor um (₹15,000 × 2): ₹30,000/- Funeral expenses: ₹5,000/- Loss of estate: ₹5,000/- Total: ₹3,36,957/-, which is rounded off to ₹3,37,000/-. 18. Since the learned Tribunal had awarded ₹1,25,000/-, the enhanced amount payable to the appellants works out to ₹2,12,000/-. 19. The Tribunal, by awarding a lump sum amount without applying the structured formula evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, failed to determine “just compensa on” as mandated under Sec on 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reassessment undertaken herein brings the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
award in conformity with the se:led legal principles. 20. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be en tled to enhanced compensa on of ₹2,12,000/-, over and above the amount already awarded, along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe on ll realiza on. The liability shall remain joint and several upon the respondents. Except the amount of ₹15,000/- with propor onate interest payable to the father, remaining enhanced compensa on with propor onate interest shall be payable to the mother of the deceased only. 18.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document