IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 246 FAO-2005-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.02.2026 Savitri and Others …..Appellants Vs. Dayanamic Movers (Private) Ltd. and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.2- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa'on against the common award dated 26.10.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, whereby four claim pe''ons arising out of the same motor vehicular accident, including the claim pe''on of the appellants herein, were decided together. 2. The claim arises out of a motor vehicular accident dated 22.02.1999, in which Niranjan lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-38A-1420. His widow, four children and widowed mother filed a 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 Tribunal assessed the compensa'on at ₹4,58,600/, holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount along with interest. 4. The appellants have assailed the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal commi7ed errors in (i) not adding future prospects, (ii) NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2005-2003 (O&M) -2- applying an incorrect mul'plier, (iii) making excessive deduc'on towards personal expenses, and (iv) awarding inadequate compensa'on under the conven'onal heads. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was working as a Beldar with the Water Supply Department, Municipal Corpora'on of Delhi, and as per salary cer'ficate Ex.P-43/A, his gross salary was ₹4,577/- per month, whereas the Tribunal assessed the income at ₹4,000/- per month. It is further urged that with six dependents, deduc'on ought to have been one-fourth; that the deceased being 30 years of age, the appropriate mul'plier was ‘17’; and that no addi'on towards future prospects was made. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly concedes that the mul'plier, deduc'on for personal expenses and future prospects have not been applied in accordance with se7led law, though it is argued that assessment of income at ₹4,000/- per month is jus'fied on account of deduc'ons from salary. 7. On a specific query by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants could not explain the nature of deduc'on of ₹584/- reflected in the salary cer'ficate. In the absence of any evidence that the deduc'on was non-statutory, this Court finds no infirmity in the Tribunal taking the net salary of ₹3,993/- and rounding it off to ₹4,000/- per month. The assessment of income, therefore, does not warrant interference. 8. However, the deceased was admi7edly a permanent government employee and was 30 years of age at the 'me of death. The learned Tribunal erred in not gran'ng any addi'on towards future prospects. The law on this issue now stands se7led by the Cons'tu'on Bench judgment in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it has been held that in case of a permanent employee below the age of 40 years, an addi'on of 50% of actual salary towards future prospects is mandatory. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2005-2003 (O&M) -3- 9. The learned Tribunal further erred in applying a mul'plier of ‘14’. In Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Supreme Court standardized the selec'on of mul'plier based on the age of the deceased and held that for a deceased aged 26–30 years, the appropriate mul'plier is ‘17’. The said principle has been consistently followed and reaffirmed in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65, and later approved in Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. As regards deduc'on towards personal and living expenses, the deceased leK behind six dependents, namely, widow, four children and mother. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been categorically held that where the number of dependents is 4 to 6, the appropriate deduc'on is one- fourth, and not one-third. The deduc'on applied by the Tribunal is thus contrary to se7led law. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal posi'on, the compensa'on payable to the claimants is required to be re-worked. 12. Accordingly, re-calcula'on of Compensa'on is as under: Par9culars Amount
Monthly income ₹4,000/-
Annual income ₹48,000/-
Addi'on of 50% towards future prospects (Pranay Sethi) ₹24,000/-
Annual income aKer addi'on ₹72,000/-
Deduc'on of 1/4th towards personal expenses (Sarla Verma) ₹18,000/-
Annual loss of dependency ₹54,000/-
Mul'plier (Sarla Verma) ‘17’
Loss of dependency (54,000 x 17) ₹9,18,000/- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2005-2003 (O&M) -4- 13. As regards conven'onal heads, considering that the accident occurred in February 1999, the amounts are awarded in consonance with the norms applicable at that 'me. Accordingly, the claimants are en'tled to:
Loss of estate : ₹5,000/-
Funeral expenses : ₹5,000/-
Loss of consor'um / parental consor'um / filial consor'um – ₹12,000/- each : (₹72,000/- in total) 14. Thus, the total compensa'on payable works out as under:
Loss of dependency : ₹9,18,000/-
Conven'onal heads : ₹82,000/-
Total : ₹10,00,000/- 15. Since the learned Tribunal has already awarded ₹4,58,600/-, the appellants are en'tled to an enhancement of ₹5,41,400/-. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be en'tled to enhanced compensa'on of ₹5,41,400/-, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe''on 'll actual realiza'on. The enhanced compensa'on along with accrued interest shall be shared equally amongst the claimants and paid directly into their respec've bank accounts. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 17. All pending miscellaneous applica'on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 05, 2026 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.06 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document