FAO-4387-2005 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 238 Bachni Devi (since deceased Jasmer Singh and CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Pundir, Advocate, for Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Vibha Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.3 **** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the co Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter “ 01.04.2005, whereby a sum of account of the death of Prem Singh, husband of the appellant No.1 vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002, due to rash and negligent driving of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 21.05.2026 Pronounced on: 27.05.2026 Uploaded on Bachni Devi (since deceased) through LRs and Versus Jasmer Singh and Others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL **** Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Pundir, Advocate, for Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Vibha Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter “the Tribunal 01.04.2005, whereby a sum of ₹1,00,000/- was granted account of the death of Prem Singh, husband of the appellant No.1 vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002, due to rash and negligent driving of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4387-2005 Reserved on: 21.05.2026 Pronounced on: 27.05.2026 Uploaded on:27.05.2026 through LRs and Others ……Appellants ……Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Insurance Company. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants–claimants mpensation awarded by the learned Motor the Tribunal”), vide award dated was granted as compensation on account of the death of Prem Singh, husband of the appellant No.1, in the motor vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002, due to rash and negligent driving of claimants mpensation awarded by the learned Motor ”), vide award dated on , in the motor vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002, due to rash and negligent driving of SHUBHAM 2026.05.27 16:47 I am the author of this document FAO-4387-2005 (O&M) respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of merely Rs.1,00,000/ which is wholly inadequate and on the lower side in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, it was contended that the deceased Prem Singh was a permanent Government employee serving as a Head Teacher in a Government Primary School and however, the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess his income while computing compensation. Furthermore, it was contended that the learned Tribunal did not apply the appropriate multiplier and has wrongly restr compensation despite the deceased being the sole breadwinner of the family. Moreover, excessive deduction towards personal expenses was made without considering the prevailing economic conditions and the dependency of the appellants upon the dece awarded under the conventional heads including funeral expenses, last rites and loss of consortium. Lastly, it was contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum is on the lower side an enhancement of compensation along with appropriate interest. 3. Per contra, Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein are well-reasoned on the basis of the material availab Tribunal. It was accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in the appeal. 2005 (O&M) -2- respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of merely Rs.1,00,000/ is wholly inadequate and on the lower side in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, it was contended that the deceased Prem Singh was a permanent Government employee serving as a Head Teacher in a Government Primary School and was earning about Rs.15,000/ however, the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess his income while computing compensation. Furthermore, it was contended that the learned Tribunal did not apply the appropriate multiplier and has wrongly restr compensation despite the deceased being the sole breadwinner of the family. Moreover, excessive deduction towards personal expenses was made without considering the prevailing economic conditions and the dependency of the appellants upon the deceased. Additionally, no adequate compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads including funeral expenses, last rites and loss of consortium. Lastly, it was contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum is on the lower side and the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation along with appropriate interest. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein reasoned on the basis of the material availab Tribunal. It was accordingly contended that no ground is made out for interference in the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of merely Rs.1,00,000/-, is wholly inadequate and on the lower side in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, it was contended that the deceased Prem Singh was a permanent Government employee serving as a Head Teacher was earning about Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess his income while computing compensation. Furthermore, it was contended that the learned Tribunal did not apply the appropriate multiplier and has wrongly restricted the compensation despite the deceased being the sole breadwinner of the family. Moreover, excessive deduction towards personal expenses was made without considering the prevailing economic conditions and the dependency of the ased. Additionally, no adequate compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads including funeral expenses, last rites and loss of consortium. Lastly, it was contended that the interest awarded at the rate d the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation along with appropriate interest. learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein reasoned on the basis of the material available before the learned Tribunal. It was accordingly contended that no ground is made out for claimants contended that the , is wholly inadequate and on the lower side in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, it was contended that the deceased Prem Singh was a permanent Government employee serving as a Head Teacher per month, however, the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess his income while computing compensation. Furthermore, it was contended that the learned icted the compensation despite the deceased being the sole breadwinner of the family. Moreover, excessive deduction towards personal expenses was made without considering the prevailing economic conditions and the dependency of the ased. Additionally, no adequate compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads including funeral expenses, last rites and loss of consortium. Lastly, it was contended that the interest awarded at the rate d the appellants are entitled to Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity, and that the findings recorded therein le before the learned Tribunal. It was accordingly contended that no ground is made out for SHUBHAM 2026.05.27 16:47 I am the author of this document FAO-4387-2005 (O&M) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, with their able assistance. 5. From the evidence led on re deceased Prem Singh suffered fatal injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of te eye witness Ravi Kumar, FIR and postmortem report, rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It has further come on record that the deceased was a permanent Government employee serving as a Head Teacher in a Government Primary School, Jassran and was drawing salary of about Rs.15,070/ 6. However, while assessing compensation, the learned Tribunal fell in error in not properly appreciating the evidence available on reco the income and dependency of the claimants upon the deceased. A perusal of the award reveals that though the salary certificate Ex.P1 duly proved that the deceased was drawing salary of about Rs.15,070/ Tribunal awarded compensation of merely Rs.1,00,000/ further took into consideration the fact that claimant No.1 family pension and that one of the sons of the deceased had attained majority while assessing the compensation pa legally unsustainable. The receipt of family pension by the widow or the fact that one of the sons had attained majority could not have been made a ground to deny just compensation to the legal representatives of when the deceased was a permanent salaried employee and admittedly the head 2005 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, with their able assistance. From the evidence led on record, it stands established that the deceased Prem Singh suffered fatal injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of te eye witness Ravi Kumar, FIR and postmortem report, rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It has further come on record that the deceased was a permanent Government rving as a Head Teacher in a Government Primary School, Jassran and was drawing salary of about Rs.15,070/- per month. However, while assessing compensation, the learned Tribunal fell in error in not properly appreciating the evidence available on reco the income and dependency of the claimants upon the deceased. A perusal of the award reveals that though the salary certificate Ex.P1 duly proved that the deceased was drawing salary of about Rs.15,070/ rded compensation of merely Rs.1,00,000/ further took into consideration the fact that claimant No.1 family pension and that one of the sons of the deceased had attained majority while assessing the compensation payable to the claimants legally unsustainable. The receipt of family pension by the widow or the fact that one of the sons had attained majority could not have been made a ground to deny just compensation to the legal representatives of when the deceased was a permanent salaried employee and admittedly the head I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the cord, it stands established that the deceased Prem Singh suffered fatal injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of testimony of eye witness Ravi Kumar, FIR and postmortem report, rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It has further come on record that the deceased was a permanent Government rving as a Head Teacher in a Government Primary School, Jassran per month. However, while assessing compensation, the learned Tribunal fell in error in not properly appreciating the evidence available on record regarding the income and dependency of the claimants upon the deceased. A perusal of the award reveals that though the salary certificate Ex.P1 duly proved that the deceased was drawing salary of about Rs.15,070/- per month, yet the learned rded compensation of merely Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal further took into consideration the fact that claimant No.1-wife was receiving family pension and that one of the sons of the deceased had attained majority yable to the claimants. Such an approach is legally unsustainable. The receipt of family pension by the widow or the fact that one of the sons had attained majority could not have been made a ground to deny just compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, particularly when the deceased was a permanent salaried employee and admittedly the head I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the cord, it stands established that the deceased Prem Singh suffered fatal injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 09.04.2002 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending stimony of eye witness Ravi Kumar, FIR and postmortem report, rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It has further come on record that the deceased was a permanent Government rving as a Head Teacher in a Government Primary School, Jassran However, while assessing compensation, the learned Tribunal fell rd regarding the income and dependency of the claimants upon the deceased. A perusal of the award reveals that though the salary certificate Ex.P1 duly proved that the per month, yet the learned . The learned Tribunal wife was receiving family pension and that one of the sons of the deceased had attained majority . Such an approach is legally unsustainable. The receipt of family pension by the widow or the fact that one of the sons had attained majority could not have been made a ground to the deceased, particularly when the deceased was a permanent salaried employee and admittedly the head SHUBHAM 2026.05.27 16:47 I am the author of this document FAO-4387-2005 (O&M) of the family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 17 SCC 465, deduction from compensation cannot be made on account of pensionary benefits or compassionate appointment granted to the family members of the deceased. A similar principle has also been reiterated in v. Premlal Gautam, 2025(2) TAC 384 learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and liable to be reassessed in accordance with settled principles governing grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Further, the findings recorded by the learned Tribuna to the age and income of the deceased are affirmed Tribunal has erred in law in awarding compensation on the lower side, inasmuch as it has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, and compensation under the con accordance with the settled principles of law. Furthermore, the deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be modified in view of the number of dependents. Consequently, the quantum of compensation deserves reassessed in the light of the settled principles governing motor accident claims. 8. Since the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of annual income comes to tax slabs applicable to standard deduction of annual income comes to taxable income exceeded 2005 (O&M) -4- of the family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 17 SCC 465, ion from compensation cannot be made on account of pensionary benefits or compassionate appointment granted to the family members of the deceased. A similar principle has also been reiterated in v. Premlal Gautam, 2025(2) TAC 384. Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and liable to be reassessed in accordance with settled principles governing grant of compensation under the Motor Further, the findings recorded by the learned Tribuna to the age and income of the deceased are affirmed Tribunal has erred in law in awarding compensation on the lower side, inasmuch as it has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, and compensation under the consortium heads has also not been granted in accordance with the settled principles of law. Furthermore, the deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be modified in view of the number of dependents. Consequently, the quantum of compensation deserves reassessed in the light of the settled principles governing motor accident claims. Since the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of annual income comes to ₹1,80,840/- (15,070 × 12).Keeping in view the income tax slabs applicable for the assessment year 2002 to standard deduction of ₹25,000/-. After deducting the said amount, the taxable annual income comes to ₹1,55,840/- (₹1,80,840/ taxable income exceeded ₹1,50,000/-, the applicable tax liability was of the family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sebastian Lakra v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 17 SCC 465, has categorically held that ion from compensation cannot be made on account of pensionary benefits or compassionate appointment granted to the family members of the deceased. A similar principle has also been reiterated in Pramod Kumar Tiwari the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and liable to be reassessed in accordance with settled principles governing grant of compensation under the Motor Further, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with respect to the age and income of the deceased are affirmed. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in law in awarding compensation on the lower side, inasmuch as it has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, and sortium heads has also not been granted in accordance with the settled principles of law. Furthermore, the deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be modified in view of the number of dependents. Consequently, the quantum of compensation deserves to be reassessed in the light of the settled principles governing motor accident claims. Since the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of ₹15,070/-, his (15,070 × 12).Keeping in view the income for the assessment year 2002-03, the deceased was entitled . After deducting the said amount, the taxable ₹1,80,840/- − ₹25,000/-). Since the licable tax liability was ₹19,000/- Sebastian Lakra v. National has categorically held that ion from compensation cannot be made on account of pensionary benefits or compassionate appointment granted to the family members of the Pramod Kumar Tiwari the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and liable to be reassessed in accordance with settled principles governing grant of compensation under the Motor l with respect . However, the learned Tribunal has erred in law in awarding compensation on the lower side, inasmuch as it has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, and sortium heads has also not been granted in accordance with the settled principles of law. Furthermore, the deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be modified in view of the number of to be , his (15,070 × 12).Keeping in view the income 03, the deceased was entitled . After deducting the said amount, the taxable ). Since the - SHUBHAM 2026.05.27 16:47 I am the author of this document FAO-4387-2005 (O&M) plus 30% of the amount exceeding ₹1,50,000/- by income tax payable works out to deducting the aforesaid amount towards income tax, the net annual income of the deceased is assessed at to ₹13,341/- per month. 9. Therefore, the deceased, being 57 years of age, had a net monthly income of ₹13,341/ down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in v. Pranay Sethi prospects, and the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group is ‘9’, with deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses as there are four dependents. Hence, the compensation amounts to ₹15,342/- × 12 = 10. In addition thereto, the appellants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads and each claimant is held entitled to (₹48,400×4 = entitled to ₹18,150/ expenses (escalation @10% every three years as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compensation payable to the claimants is computed as (₹12,42,702/- + 11. The enhanced compensation in the appeal, i.e. (₹14,72,602/- − the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by respondent 2005 (O&M) -5- plus 30% of the amount exceeding ₹1,50,000/- by ₹5,840/- and 30% thereof comes to income tax payable works out to ₹20,752/- deducting the aforesaid amount towards income tax, the net annual income of the deceased is assessed at ₹1,60,088/- (₹1,80,840/ per month. Therefore, the deceased, being 57 years of age, had a net monthly ₹13,341/- after deduction of income tax. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, 15% is liable to be added towards future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group is ‘9’, with deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses as there are four dependents. Hence, the compensation amounts to ₹12,42,720/ × 12 = ₹1,84,104/- − 1/4th = ₹1,38,078/ In addition thereto, the appellants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads and each claimant is held entitled to 48,400×4 = ₹193600/-) towards consortium. Further, the claimants are ₹18,150/- towards loss of estate and expenses (escalation @10% every three years as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case compensation payable to the claimants is computed as + ₹1,93,600/- + ₹18,150/- + ₹18,150/ The enhanced compensation in the appeal, i.e. ₹1,00,000/-) shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by respondent -. The taxable income exceeded and 30% thereof comes to ₹1,752/-. Thus, the total (₹19,000/- + ₹1,752/-). After deducting the aforesaid amount towards income tax, the net annual income of ₹1,80,840/- − ₹20,752/-), which comes Therefore, the deceased, being 57 years of age, had a net monthly after deduction of income tax. In view of the law laid National Insurance Company Limited , 15% is liable to be added towards future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group is ‘9’, with deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses as there are four dependents. 12,42,720/- (₹13,341/- + 15% = ₹1,38,078/- × 9 = ₹12,42,702/-) In addition thereto, the appellants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads and each claimant is held entitled to ₹48,400/- ) towards consortium. Further, the claimants are towards loss of estate and ₹18,150/- towards funeral expenses (escalation @10% every three years as per the law laid down by the thi’s case (supra)). Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants is computed as ₹14,72,602/- ₹18,150/-). The enhanced compensation in the appeal, i.e.₹13,72,602/- shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by respondent . The taxable income exceeded . Thus, the total ). After deducting the aforesaid amount towards income tax, the net annual income of ), which comes Therefore, the deceased, being 57 years of age, had a net monthly after deduction of income tax. In view of the law laid National Insurance Company Limited , 15% is liable to be added towards future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group is ‘9’, with deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses as there are four dependents. + 15% = In addition thereto, the appellants are also entitled to compensation - ) towards consortium. Further, the claimants are towards funeral expenses (escalation @10% every three years as per the law laid down by the the total - - shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by respondent SHUBHAM 2026.05.27 16:47 I am the author of this document FAO-4387-2005 (O&M) No.3- Insurance Company to the appellants appeal is allowed in above terms. 12. Pen May 27, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 2005 (O&M) -6- Insurance Company to the appellants-claimants in equal ratio. Hence, the appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether Reportable:- claimants in equal ratio. Hence, the ding application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No claimants in equal ratio. Hence, the SHUBHAM 2026.05.27 16:47 I am the author of this document