IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 221 FAO-3737-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.01.2026 Mohan Lal and Another …..Appellants Vs. Jafrudin and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Meenakshi Bali, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This is a claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensa'on. 2. One Dharamvir lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 14.12.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. HR- 26-E-6278. The deceased was 21 years of age, unmarried, and was stated to be working as a part-'me sweeper and STD booth operator. His parents filed a claim pe''on under Sec'on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensa'on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while holding the respondents jointly and severally liable, assessed the compensa'on at ₹2,22,400/- along with interest. 4. Dissa'sfied with the quantum, the claimants have approached this Court seeking enhancement. Learned counsel for the appellants NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3737-2003 (O&M) -2- contends that though the no'onal income of the deceased assessed at ₹2,100/- per month is not disputed, the learned Tribunal commi>ed a manifest error in deduc'ng 1/3rd towards personal expenses. It is urged that since the deceased was unmarried, the deduc'on ought to have been ½, in accordance with the se>led principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5. It is further submi>ed that no amount was added towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Cons'tu'on Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009. Addi'onally, despite the deceased being 21 years of age, the Tribunal applied a mul'plier of ‘13’, whereas the correct mul'plier ought to have been ‘18’. It is also argued that compensa'on under conven'onal heads has not been awarded in consonance with the prevailing legal posi'on. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3–Insurance Company, on the other hand, could not effec'vely refute any of the aforesaid submissions. 7. Having considered the ma>er, this Court finds merit in the appeal. The legal posi'on regarding assessment of compensa'on is no longer res integra. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been authorita'vely held that in the case of an unmarried deceased, deduc'on towards personal and living expenses shall ordinarily be 50%. Further, in Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been held that even in cases of no'onal income, future prospects are required to be added—40% where the deceased was below 40 years of age. The mul'plier is to be applied strictly with reference to the age of the deceased, and for a person aged 21 years, the applicable mul'plier is ‘18’. 8. Insofar as compensa'on under conven'onal heads is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and later reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sander Kaur @ Satwinder NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3737-2003 (O&M) -3- Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780, has recognised parental consor'um as a compensable head. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the admi>ed facts of the present case, the compensa'on is re-worked as under: Head Amount Monthly income ₹2,100/- Add 40% towards future prospects ₹2,940/- Annual income ₹35,280/- Deduc'on towards personal expenses (½) ₹17,640/- Annual loss of dependency ₹17,640/- Mul'plier 18 Total loss of dependency ₹3,17,520/- Funeral expenses ₹18,000/- Loss of estate ₹18,000/- Loss of parental consor'um ₹88,000/- (₹44,000/- each) Total compensa'on ₹4,41,520/- 10. The Tribunal had awarded a total compensa'on of ₹2,22,400/-. Consequently, the appellants-claimants are held en'tled to enhanced compensa'on of ₹2,19,120/-. 11. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe''on 'll actual realisa'on. The appor'onment of compensa'on amongst the claimants shall remain as directed by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 12. All pending miscellaneous applica'on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 12, 2026 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document