IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3721-2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Smt. Sewapa! and others ...Appellants Versus Dilbag Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Deep Inder Singh Wali, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by three of the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensa!on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 13.03.2003. 2. At the outset, it may be no!ced that the copies of the grounds of appeal and the award available on record are par!ally burnt and not fully legible. However, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly placed on record readable copies of the grounds of appeal and the award, which have been taken into considera!on for proper adjudica!on of the ma7er. 3. The record reveals that one Davinder Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. HR-21-A-4344. His widow, two minor children and aged parents filed a claim pe!!on under Sec!on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa!on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensa!on at ₹3,14,200/- and directed payment thereof jointly and severally by the respondents along with interest. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
  
 




4. The present appeal has been filed by the widow and two minor children, impleading the parents as proforma respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that even if the no!onal monthly income of ₹2,400/- assessed by the Tribunal is accepted, the Tribunal failed to (i) add future prospects, (ii) apply the appropriate mul!plier, (iii) make proper deduc!on towards personal expenses, and (iv) grant just compensa!on under conven!onal heads. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly concedes that in view of the se7led legal posi!on, since there were five dependents, deduc!on towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 1/4th; that considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, mul!plier of 17 was applicable; and that 40% was liable to be added towards future prospects. 7. The rival submissions thus fall within the well-se7led principles governing assessment of compensa!on in fatal accident cases. 8. The law rela!ng to computa!on of compensa!on has now a7ained crystallized form. In Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Supreme Court standardized the method of selec!on of mul!plier and deduc!on towards personal expenses, holding that where the number of dependents is 4 to 6, deduc!on should be 1/4th. It was further held that the mul!plier is to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased. For a deceased aged 26–30 years, mul!plier of 17 is applicable. 9. Subsequently, in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 4 RCR (Civil) 1009, the Cons!tu!on Bench authorita!vely held that future prospects must be added even in cases of self-employed or fixed income persons. For a deceased below 40 years of age, addi!on of 40% towards future prospects is mandated. 10. Further, in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Supreme Court clarified YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
  
 




that consor!um is not confined to spousal consor!um alone but includes parental and filial consor!um as well, and that each eligible claimant is en!tled to compensa!on under the said head. 11. In the present case, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹2,400/-. Although the appellants contend that the income was on the lower side, no cogent material has been placed on record in appeal to jus!fy enhancement of the income. Therefore, for the purpose of computa!on, the monthly income of ₹2,400/- as assessed by the Tribunal is maintained. 12. The compensa!on is thus recalculated in accordance with the se7led principles as under:
Monthly income: ₹2,400/-
Annual income: ₹28,800/-
Addi!on of 40% towards future prospects (₹11,520/-):
Annual income with future prospects: ₹40,320/-
Deduc!on of 1/4th towards personal expenses (since five dependents): 10,080/-
Loss of annual dependency: ₹30,240/-
Mul!plier applicable (age 27 years): 17
Loss of dependency: ₹30,240 × 17 = ₹5,14,080/- 13. The Tribunal did not grant compensa!on in accordance with the binding precedents under the conven!onal heads. It is true that in Pranay Sethi, the amount of ₹40,000/- was fixed towards loss of consor!um. However, it must be no!ced that the accident in the present case occurred in January 1998 and the award was passed in 2003. The concept of consor!um, as expansively interpreted in Magma General YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
  
 




Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others (ibid), evolved subsequently. Having regard to the date of accident and to maintain parity with awards pertaining to that period, a moderate and reasonable amount is required to be awarded. 14. There were five claimants — widow, two minor children and aged parents. Each is en!tled to compensa!on under the head of consor!um/parental consor!um/filial consor!um. However, considering the date of accident, awarding ₹15,000/- each would meet the ends of jus!ce. Accordingly, a total sum of ₹75,000/- is awarded under this head. 15. Further, ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, totaling ₹10,000/- under these heads. 16. Thus, the total compensa!on payable is recalculated as under:
Loss of dependency: ₹5,14,080/-
Consor!um (₹15,000 × 5): ₹75,000/-
Loss of estate and funeral expenses: ₹10,000/-
Total compensa!on: ₹5,99,080/- 17. The Tribunal had awarded ₹3,14,200/-. Therefore, the enhanced compensa!on works out to be ₹5,99,080 – ₹3,14,200 = ₹2,84,880/-. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are held en!tled to enhanced compensa!on of ₹2,84,880/-, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe!!on !ll realiza!on. 19. It is further no!ced that at the !me of filing of the claim pe!!on in 2002, the parents of the deceased were aged 70 and 75 years respec!vely. They have not preferred any appeal seeking enhancement. Having regard to the advanced age of the parents and the fact that the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
  
 




present appeal has been pursued only by the widow and children, it is directed that the enhanced compensa!on amount shall be appor!oned equally amongst the appellants, namely the widow and two children of the deceased. 20. The liability shall remain joint and several as determined by the Tribunal. 21. With the aforesaid modifica!on in the quantum of compensa!on, the appeal stands disposed of. 12.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document