FAO-7411 IN THE HIG 220 1. National Ins Smt. Preeti 2. Smt. Preeti a Anshul Goya CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. FAO Company ag 11-2016 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) al Insurance Company Versus reeti and others FAO-350-2017 reeti and others Versus l Goyal, and others Date o M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Com (in FAO-7411-2016) and for respondent No. 3 (in FAO- Mr. Chetan Kumar, Advocate fo Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6/driv (in FAO-7411-2016) and for respondents No. 1 and 2 (in Mr. PK Rohila, Advocate for respondent-claimants (in FA for the appellants (in FAO-350 I GUPTA, J. FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) Present appeal has been filed any against the Award dated 09.08.20 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .…Appellant ....Respondents .…Appellants ....Respondents Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 NIDHI GUPTA e Company -350-2017). cate for cate, /driver and owner 2 (in FAO-350-2017). (in FAO-7411-2016) and 350-2017). filed by the appellant-Insurance .08.2016 passed by Motor Accident ance dent RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 Claims Tribu whereby Cla Section 166 by the claim and compens 2. FAO enhancemen Tribunal vid No. 93 of 2 Act. The 04 father; iii) deceased-Sit time of accid 1. by this comm 09.08.2016 facts, and iss brevity, the f Insurance C referred to as 2. basis of pl deceased-Sit took place 11-2016 (O&M) -2- s Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred by Claim Petition No. 93 of 2015 n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 he mpensation of ₹23,12,000/- has been a FAO-350-2017 Present cross-appeal has been f cement of compensation of ₹23,12,0 al vide impugned Award dated09.08.2 3 of 2015 dated 15.05.2015 filed und he 04 claimants are the: i) 20-yea ; iii) 50-year-old mother; and iv) Sitender Kumar Dass who was m f accident. Both the aforementioned cross s common order as both appeals are 2016; arise out of the same accident d and issues involved in both the appeals y, the facts are being taken from FAO nce Company vs. Smt. Preeti and o d to as per their litigative status in the Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Sitender Kumar, had died in a m lace 04.04.2015 due to the rash and n eferred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) 2015 dated 15.05.2015filed under ct, 1988 (for short-‘the Act’); filed o 4 herein, has been partly allowed been awarded to them. been filed by the claimants seeking 3,12,000/- awarded by the learned 09.08.2016 passed in Claim Petition ed under Section 166 of the of the year-old widow; ii) 53-year-old iv) 76-year-old grandmother of was more than 24-years-old at the cross-appeals are being disposed of are against the same Award dated ident dated 04.04.2015; and parties, appeals are identical. For the sake of FAO-7411-2016 titled as ‘National and others’, and parties are being in the said appeal. re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that in a motor vehicular accident that and negligent driving of Swift Car al’) nder filed wed king rned ition the old r of the d of ated ties, of onal eing the that that Car RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 bearing regi offending v respondent Insurance Co along with i petition till a the amount o 3. challenge to compensatio of₹23,12,000 of law laid Company L per which Tribunal had 4. 53 years ol dependent up held to be Hon’ble Su Corporation have been m 1/4th toward impugned A 11-2016 (O&M) -3- g registration no. HR-36-L-9683 (he ng vehicle’) by respondent No.5 dent No. 6-Chitranjan Goyal; and nce Company. Learned Tribunal awa with interest @ 7.5% per annum from n till actual realization. All the respon ount of compensation jointly and seve Learned counsel for the appel nge to the impugned Award only nsation. It is submitted that the amoun ,12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribu laid down by the Hon’ble Apex C any Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and o future prospects ought to have b al had made an addition of 50% towar Further, it is submitted that fat ars old at the time of accident. Y dent upon the deceased. Even grandmo o be dependent upon him. Therefore, le Supreme Court in Sarla Ver ration, Law Finder Doc Id # 18888 been made; whereas the learned Trib towards personal expenses. It is a ned Award be modified. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the No.5-Anshul Goyal; owned by ; and insured by the appellant- al awarded the above compensation m from the date of filing the claim respondents were held liable to pay d severally. appellant/Insurance Company lays only on ground of quantum of amount of compensation to the tune Tribunal is not sustainable in view pex Court in National Insurance and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as have been added @ 40%; whereas towards future prospects. hat father of the deceased was only . Yet he has been taken to be andmother of the deceased has been refore, in terms of judgment of the Verma vs. Delhi Transport 188882, deduction of 1/3rd ought to d Tribunal has made deduction of t is accordingly prayed that the ‘the by tion laim pay lays of tune iew nce only be een the port ht to n of the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 5. opposed the Company an one fourth as dependent o claimant No deceased. T correctly ma 6. of compensa not been cor proved on r drawing sala per month b also working earning ₹680 cogent evide deceased wh has incorrect 7. and loss of loss of estate above. 8. heard learne 11-2016 (O&M) -4- Per Contra, learned counsel f ed the submissions advanced on beha and submits that the Tribunal has urth as father of the deceased although dent on the deceased as he was total nt No. 4/grand-mother of the decease Therefore, deduction of 1/4th tow tly made. Learned counsel for the claiman pensation amount by submitting tha en correctly assessed. It is pointed ou on record that the deceased was w g salary of ₹9000/- per month. Decea onth by doing overtime with his emplo orking part time with the Petrol Fillin 6800/- per month. It is submitted t evidence to prove the aforesaid emp ed which have been ignored by the l correctly been assessed as ₹9000/- per Moreover, nothing has been aw ss of love and affection. Even nothin f estate. It is accordingly prayed that c No other argument is raised on learned counsel and perused the case f nsel for the claimants vehemently n behalf of the appellant-Insurance al has correctly made deduction of lthough being only 53 years old was s totally bedridden. For this reason eceased as also dependent upon the towards personal expenses was laimants further seeks enhancement ng that income of the deceased has ted out that the claimants had duly was working as an Electrician and Deceased was also earning ₹5000/- employer Company. Deceased was l Filling Station from where he was itted that claimants have produced d employments and income of the y the learned Tribunal; and income per month. een awarded towards transportation; hing has been awarded towards that compensation be enhanced as sed on behalf of the parties. I have case file in detail. ntly ance n of was ason the was has duly and was was ced the ome tion; ards d as ave RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 9. the claimant question, dec Bahadurgarh and was also said appointm PW-5 Yash produced th deceased. which it was 01.07.2013 a and from ph deceased wa were unable ADS Spirits 10. simultaneous Filling Stati claimants ha Station who filling statio support, PW P-3 to Ex. P by the learne office where 11-2016 (O&M) -5- Perusal of the record reveals th aimants before the learned Tribunal on, deceased was working as Electricia urgarh from where he was drawing as also getting ₹5000/- per month by ppointment and income of the deceased Yashvir Kadian, Manager, ADS the salary and other records ed. PW5 had produced Appointme it was proved that the deceased had jo 2013 as an Electrician Trainee. From om photocopy of the salary-sheet Ex ed was getting salary of ₹9000/- per m nable to prove any income of the dece pirits. It is also asserted by the c aneously doing part time work as El Station and earning ₹6800/- per mo nts had examined PW-2 Mangat Ram n who has stated that deceased had station since 01.12.2012; and was g , PW-2 Mangat Ram had produced Ex. P-11. However, the said attendanc learned Tribunal as the same did not where the deceased was working. PW eals that it was the pleaded case of bunal that prior to the accident in ectrician with ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., wing salary of ₹9000/- per month; th by doing overtime. To prove the ceased, the claimants had examined ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd.; who had rds regarding employment of the intment Letter Ex. PW-5/A from had joined ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. on From Salary Certificate Ex. PW-5/B eet Ex. PW-5/D it was proved that per month. However, the claimants e deceased by way of overtime with the claimants that deceased was as Electrician with the Hanumant per month. To prove the same, the t Ram, Manager, Hanumant Filling d had been working with the said was getting ₹6800/- per month. In uced the attendance register as Ex. endance register was rightly rejected id not bear any seal or name of the ng. PW-2 had also not brought any e of t in td., ; the ined had the rom on 5/B that ants with was ant the lling said . In Ex. cted the any RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 salary record the tune of Authority Le depose befo Tribunal has month. As s income of th 11. the time of examination P-17 to Ex. date of birth per law laid be made tow made an ad accordance w 18, keeping 12. Tribunal tow Tribunal are old mother; Kumar. It ha old father w However, n claimants to 11-2016 (O&M) -6- record of the deceased to prove alleg ne of ₹6800/- per month. PW-2 rity Letter from the Hanumant Fillin e before the learned Tribunal. In thes al has correctly assessed the income o . As such, the argument of learned c e of the deceased has wrongly been as Further, age of the deceased wa me of accident on the basis of c tion (Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-16); copie o Ex. P-19) and copy of his driving f birth of the deceased has been menti w laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) de towards future prospects. However an addition of 50% towards futur ance with law. The Tribunal has corre eping in view age of deceased. As regards the deduction of al towards personal expenses, the 04 al are the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) 53 other; and iv) 76-year-old grandm It has been contended on behalf of t er was dependent upon his 24-year ver, no medical evidence in this re nts to show that claimant No. 2/53- e alleged income of the deceased to had also failed to show any Filling Station, authorizing him to In these circumstances, the learned come of the deceased as ₹9000/- per rned counsel for the claimants that assessed is without merit. ed was determined to be 24 years at s of copies of secondary school ; copies of diploma-certificates (Ex. iving licence Ex. P-21 wherein the mentioned as 28.09.1990. Thus, as upra), addition of 40% is liable to wever, the Tribunal has incorrectly future prospect which is not in s correctly applied the multiplier of on of 1/4th made by the learned 04 claimants before the learned ; ii) 53-year-old father; iii) 50-year- grandmother of deceased-Sitender lf of the claimants that the 53-year- year-old son as he was bedridden. this regard was produced by the -year-old father of the deceased d to any to rned per that rs at hool (Ex. the le to t in r of rned rned nder . the ased RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 was depende upon the dec would first b deceased gra towards pers 1/4th. 13. awarded an towards fune ₹40,000/- ea under the He 14. by the Insura filed by the the claimant Details Income Future prospects Deduction Multiplier Loss dependency Loss consortium Funeral 11-2016 (O&M) -7- ependent upon him. As such, he cann the deceased. Resultantly, claimant N first be dependent upon her son i.e. cl ed grandson. In this situation, deducti s personal expenses; whereas the Tri Under the conventional head ed an amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards s funeral expenses. As per law, all th each under the Head loss of con the Heads of funeral expenses and loss In view of the above discussion Insurance Company stands allowed y the claimants stands dismissed; an imants is re-assessed as per the structu Before the Tribunal ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum 50% ₹9000+4500 = ₹ 13,500 ction 1/4th= ₹3375/-(13500- 3375 = 10,125) annual dependency comes to 10,125x12=₹1,21,500/- iplier 18 of dency ₹1,21,500/- x 18 = ₹21,87,000/- of rtium ₹1,00,000/- ₹25,000/- e cannot be taken to be dependent ant No. 4/76-year-old grandmother i.e. claimant No. 2 rather than upon eduction of 1/3rd ought to have been he Tribunal had made deduction of heads, the learned Tribunal has wards loss of consortium; ₹25,000/- , all the 04 claimants are entitled to of consortium; and ₹15,000/- each nd loss of estate, respectively. cussion, the FAO-7411-2016 filed wed; whereas the FAO-350-2017 and compensation payable to structured formula as follows: - Revised compensation th or ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum 40% ₹9000+3600 =₹12,600/- - nual s to - 1/3rd= ₹4200/- (12600- 4200=8400) annual dependency comes to 8400 x 12= ₹1,00,800/- 18 = ₹1,00,800/- x 18 = ₹18,14,400/- ₹40,000/- to each of the claimant i.e. 40,000 x 4 = ₹1,60,000/- ₹15,000/- dent ther pon een n of has d to each RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7411 expenses Loss of Esta Total compensat Interest 15. 16. case. 25.02.2026 rishu 11-2016 (O&M) -8- of Estate NIL ensation ₹23,12,000/- 7.5% per annum Pending application(s), if any, s A photocopy of this order be 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ₹15,000/- ₹20,04,400/- 7.5% any, shall also stand disposed of. er be placed on file of connected ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No cted RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.