IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Anita and others Raj Kumar and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, Advocate, for DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.10.2016 passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Trial Court record has been received and carefully perused. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 3. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 06.09.2015 7.00–7.30 p.m., deceased Sunil Kumar along with his sister Ritu was returning towards his residence from Sonipat on a scooty bearing registration No. DL AG-0335. The scooty was being driven by the deceased, while Ritu was travelling as a pilli (Phatak), Panchi Road, Ganaur, offending vehicle registration No. HR negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the flyov the scooty head IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Anita and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others **** Reserved on: 08.07.2026 Pronounced on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, Advocate, for **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award 21.10.2016 passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Trial Court record has been received and carefully perused. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 06.09.2015 7.30 p.m., deceased Sunil Kumar along with his sister Ritu was returning towards his residence from Sonipat on a scooty bearing registration No. DL 0335. The scooty was being driven by the deceased, while Ritu was travelling as a pillion rider. On reaching near Agu , Panchi Road, Ganaur, offending vehicle registration No. HR-42C-7821, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the flyov the scooty head-on. Due to the forceful impact, Ritu fell on the road whereas IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2970-2017 (O&M) . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 08.07.2026 Pronounced on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, Advocate, for respondent No.3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award 21.10.2016 passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Trial Court record has been received and carefully perused. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 06.09.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., deceased Sunil Kumar along with his sister Ritu was returning towards his residence from Sonipat on a scooty bearing registration No. DL-5S 0335. The scooty was being driven by the deceased, while Ritu was on rider. On reaching near Aguwanpur Railway Crossing , Panchi Road, Ganaur, offending vehicle - Maruti Eeco Car bearing 7821, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the flyover side and struck on. Due to the forceful impact, Ritu fell on the road whereas 2017 (O&M) . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award Trial Court record has been received and carefully perused. at about 7.30 p.m., deceased Sunil Kumar along with his sister Ritu was returning 5S- 0335. The scooty was being driven by the deceased, while Ritu was wanpur Railway Crossing Maruti Eeco Car bearing 7821, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and er side and struck on. Due to the forceful impact, Ritu fell on the road whereas VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 the deceased along with the scooty was dragged by the offending vehicle for some distance. He sustained multiple grievous injuries and was removed to PGIMS, Khanpur Kalan, where he was declared brought dead. On the statement of the complainant, FIR No.476 dated 07.09.2015 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Ganaur. 4. The widow, two minor children and the mother of the deceased instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. It was pleaded that the deceased was serving as a Constable in Delhi Police and was drawing a monthly salary of ₹38,435/-. Since he was a permanent Government employee having bright future prospects, substantial enhancement in his earnings during the remaining service tenure was also claimed. The deceased was stated to be 39 years of age and the family claimed compensation under various pecuniary and conventional heads. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2, namely the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, failed to contest the proceedings and were proceeded against ex parte. The claim petition was, however, contested by respondent No.3–Insurance Company, which denied the allegations regarding rash and negligent driving and pleaded that the claim petition had been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 with an intent to extract exaggerated compensation from the insurer. The insurer accordingly sought dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and the parties led their respective evidence. Upon appreciation thereof, the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruti Eeco Car bearing registration No. HR-42C-7821 by respondent No.1. Since the said finding has not been assailed by any of the parties before this Court, the same has attained finality. 7. While determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal accepted that the deceased was 39 years of age and was serving as a VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 Constable in Delhi Police. However, by placing reliance upon the ‘Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006’, the Tribunal notionally added twelve years to the age of the deceased and treated his age as 51 years for the purpose of selecting the multiplier. The Tribunal thereafter applied the multiplier of 11, added 30% towards future prospects, deducted one-fourth towards personal and living expenses and ultimately awarded a total compensation of ₹25,29,000/- under different heads. 8. Assailing the award of the Tribunal, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Tribunal committed a patent error in invoking the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006, as admittedly the deceased was serving in Delhi Police and had never been governed by the said Rules. It is argued that once the actual age of the deceased was 39 years, the appropriate multiplier in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 ought to have been 15 and not 11. It is further submitted that the deceased being a permanent Government employee below 40 years of age, an addition of 50% towards future prospects was required to be made in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. On these premises, enhancement of compensation has been sought. 9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company fairly concedes that the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006 were inapplicable to the case of the deceased. However, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Shashi Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627, it is contended that the pecuniary benefits received by the claimants by way of financial assistance from the employer are liable to be adjusted while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further argued that transport allowance and conveyance allowance being personal allowances are liable to be excluded from the monthly income of the deceased and that income tax payable on the annual income must also be deducted before computing the loss of dependency. Learned counsel also submits that consortium is payable at VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 ₹40,000/- to each eligible claimant in terms of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, while enhancement of the conventional heads after every three years is no longer permissible in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2025 INSC 1501. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined the material available on record. 11. The principal controversy in the present appeal pertains to the determination of just compensation. 12. The Tribunal, while noticing that the deceased was 39 years of age and serving as a Constable in Delhi Police, proceeded to invoke the provisions of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 and, by notionally adding twelve years to the age of the deceased, treated him as being 51 years old for the purpose of selection of multiplier. Such an approach cannot be legally sustained. 13. The Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006 are statutory service rules applicable exclusively to employees of the State of Haryana. The deceased admittedly was an employee of Delhi Police. The financial benefits admissible to the dependents of an employee under the service rules governing his employment cannot be substituted by benefits available under an altogether different service regime. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a manifest error in importing the provisions of the Haryana Rules to a deceased, who was never governed thereby. Consequently, the multiplier could not have been reduced by adopting a fictional age. 14. Nevertheless, the contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company that the pecuniary advantages received by the claimants require examination cannot be rejected outright. In Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the dependents receive financial assistance in substitution of salary VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 under the applicable service rules, the same deserves consideration while computing compensation so as to avoid duplication of the same pecuniary benefit. The principle, however, does not extend to all service benefits indiscriminately. Pensionary benefits, gratuity, leave encashment, insurance proceeds or other contractual benefits earned by the employee during service are independent rights and cannot ordinarily be deducted while assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. In the present case, RW-1 Vikas Vohra has proved Ex.R-2 showing various payments made to the family after the death of the deceased, including gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, welfare fund, ex-gratia assistance, martyrs fund and other admissible benefits. Having regard to the ratio in Shashi Sharma’s Case (supra) and the nature of the payments, only the amount of ₹10,00,000/- paid as ex-gratia financial assistance together with ₹10,000/- paid towards cremation expenses deserves adjustment. The remaining benefits represent independent service or contractual entitlements earned by the deceased and cannot be treated as deductible from compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. Once the artificial enhancement of age adopted by the Tribunal is discarded, the multiplier has necessarily to be determined on the basis of the actual age of the deceased. The deceased was admittedly 39 years old on the date of accident. In terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (supra), the appropriate multiplier is 15. 17. Likewise, the deceased being a permanent Government employee below the age of 40 years, the claimants become entitled to addition of 50% of the established income towards future prospects in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Seth, (supra). 18. The monthly salary of the deceased was ₹38,435/- as proved from Ex.PW-1/7. However, while determining loss of dependency, those allowances, which are purely personal to the employee and cease with his death are not liable to be included. This Court in The New India Assurance VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 Company Ltd. v. Shri Lal (FAO No.28 of 2019 decided on 09.01.2023), after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Sunil Sharma, 2011 ACJ 1441; Raghuvir Singh Matolya Vs. Hari Singh Malviya (2009-15) SCC 363; Indira Srivastava, AIR 2008 SC 845; Sebastiani Lakra 2018(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 837; and Vimal Kanwar (2013) 7 SCC 476, held that transport allowance and conveyance allowance are personal allowances and deserve exclusion while computing multiplicand. Consequently, transport allowance of ₹3,408/- and conveyance allowance of ₹90/- are liable to be deducted from the gross salary, reducing the monthly income to ₹34,937/-. 19. After adding 50% towards future prospects, the monthly income comes to ₹52,405.50 and the annual income to ₹6,28,866/-. Since the annual income falls within the taxable limit applicable during the relevant assessment year, income tax is liable to be deducted in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (supra), wherein it was held that compensation has to be computed on the basis of actual income after deduction of income tax wherever applicable. 20. After deducting the applicable income tax of ₹50,773.20, the annual income available for computation comes to ₹5,78,092.80. Deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses is justified as the deceased left behind four dependents. The annual contribution to the family accordingly works out to ₹4,33,569.60. Applying multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency comes to ₹65,03,544/-. 21. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin and Others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (supra), to contend that enhancement of 10% under the conventional heads after every three years, as contemplated in paragraph 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (supra), is no longer permissible. The contention deserves acceptance. 22. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) quantified compensation under the conventional heads and observed that the said amounts should ordinarily be enhanced by 10% every three years. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 Subsequently, in Hasina Yasmin (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering an accident which had taken place prior to the pronouncement of Pranay Sethi, declined to grant such periodical enhancement and awarded only the conventional sums of ₹40,000/- towards consortium and ₹15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Supreme Court also noticed that the larger issue regarding automatic enhancement after every three years stands referred for authoritative determination by a Larger Bench. Until a different view is taken by the Larger Bench, judicial discipline requires this Court to follow the law presently declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. In the present case also, the accident occurred on 06.09.2015, i.e. much prior to the pronouncement of Pranay Sethi (supra) on 31.10.2017. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in Hasina Yasmin (supra), the claimants would be entitled only to the conventional amounts of ₹40,000/- towards consortium to each eligible claimant and ₹15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, without granting the incremental enhancement of 10% after every three years. 24. Consequently, the loss of dependency comes to ₹65,03,544/-. In addition thereto, the widow, two children and the mother of the deceased shall each be entitled to consortium of ₹40,000/-. A further sum of ₹15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is also payable. In view of the law declared in Hasina Yasmin (supra), no further enhancement of these conventional amounts by applying the principle of periodical increase of 10% is permissible. Thus, the total compensation is assessed at ₹66,93,544/-. 25. Since the claimants have admittedly received ₹10,00,000/- by way of ex-gratia financial assistance and ₹10,000/- towards cremation expenses, which are liable to adjustment in view of Shashi Sharma (supra), the net compensation payable works out to ₹56,83,544/-. 26. Out of the total compensation of ₹56,83,544/- as has been calculated above, the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹26,29,000/-. After deducting this amount, the enhanced compensation works VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2970-2017 2026:PHHC:094919 out to be ₹30,54,544/-. To take it in round figure, the enhanced compensation is held to be ₹30,55,000/-. 27. Out of the total enhanced compensation, 50% shall be liable to the widow; 20% each shall be liable to the two children, whereas the rest 10% shall be liable to the mother of the deceased. The enhanced compensation shall carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actualization. The liability of all the three respondents shall remain joint and several. 28. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 14.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document