FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -1- S. No.239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.07.2026 Mrs. Nilu Kumari Sharma and others .....Appellants Vs. Ajay Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Service of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with. Mr. Arsh Khurana, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. The liability of the respondents has been held to be joint and several. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has appeared and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1 and 2. As such, issuance of notice to them is dispense with. 2. This appeal has been instituted by the claimants against the Award dated 3.9.2002 passed in MACT case No.64 of 2001 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `Act’) for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.11,52,000/- has been awarded as RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -2- compensation to the claimants on account of death of Ram Sagar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 11.3.2001 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.CH-01-T-8482 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of award till realisation. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of Ram Sagar Sharma deceased?OPP 2. Whether Ram Sagar Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Mazda no.CH- 01-T-8482 by respondent no.1?OPP 3. If issues no.1 and 2 are proved to what of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom?OPP 4. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect?OPR.3 5. Relief. 4. The parties led their respective evidence. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,52,000/- as compensation to the claimants, along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -3- manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 3 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.2 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel contended that no future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased who was in permanent job with Indian Air Force and since deceased was 30 years of age, 50% amount should have been added to the monthly income towards future prospects. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal has applied mutliplier of 16, whereas multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied to the loss of dependancy. Likewise, compensation awarded under conventional heads i.e. ‘loss of consortium’, `loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ has not been granted. And learned counsel prayed that adequate compensation be awarded. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680- National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -4- 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. 10. Version of claimants as stated by claimant No.1, Nilu Kumari Sharma while appearing as PW1 is that her husband Ram Sagar (since deceased) was serving in Indian Air Force and was getting a salary of Rs.8,652/- per month and she also led in evidence the salary certificate Ex.P2 issued by Wing Commander S. Malik. Learned Tribuanl also held that the deceased was serving as a Corporal in the Indian Air Force and was getting salary of Rs.8,652/- per month. Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.8,652/- per month. 11. However, no future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has held the age of the deceased to be 30 years as mentioned in post mortem report Ex.P3. Deceased was in government employment and as such, 50% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),which takes his income to Rs.12,978/- per month (Rs.8,652/- + Rs.4,326/-). 12. The claim petition has been filed by the wife, minor daughter, minor son and mother of the deceased and as such, he has left behind four dependents and 1/4rd of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.3,245/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.9,733/- (Rs.12,978/- - Rs.3,245/-) RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -5- and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.1,16,796/- per annum (Rs.9,733/- X 12). 13. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 17 has to be applied as deceased was 30 years of age and after applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.19,85,532/- (Rs.1,16,796/- X 17). 14. In addition to this, claimant No.1(wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2, 3 and 4 who are minor daughter, minor son and mother of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of ‘loss of parental consortium’, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.21,75,532/-. 15. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.8,652/- per month 2. Age of deceased 30 years 3. Future prospects @ 50% Rs.4,326/- 4. Total income Rs.12,978/- 5. Number of dependents 4 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.3,245/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,733/- RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -6- (Rs.12,978/- - Rs.3,245/-) 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,16,796/- (Rs.9,733/- X 12) 8. Multiplier 17 9. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.19,85,532/- 10. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1 Rs.70,000/- 11. Consortium to claimants No.2 to 4 Rs,1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/0 X 3) Rs.40,000/- each Total Compensation Rs.21,75,532/- Interest 9% 16. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants/claimants No.1 to 4 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.21,75,532/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.10,23,532/- (Rs.21,75,532/- - Rs.11,52,000/-) (Rounded off to Rs.10,23,500/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 3.4.2001, till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each be paid to the claimants No.2 to 4 i.e. children and mother of the deceased and the remaining amount be paid to claimant No.1/wife of the deceased along with proportionate interest. 17. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5088 of 2002 (O&M) -7- General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 18. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge July 23, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh