IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-1660-2016 (O&M) Meena Behl and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Sakatar Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on:21.07.2026 Pronounced on: 23.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, with Ms. Pawandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Arya, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") vide award dated 04.09.2015, passed in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of Shallender Behl in a motor vehicular accident. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are not in serious dispute. On 31.01.2015, Shallender Behl (since deceased) was travelling from Mansa to Chandigarh in car bearing registration No. CH-01-AV-9800, which was being driven by Sanjay Kumar. The case of the claimants is that the vehicle was proceeding on its correct side of the road at a normal speed. At about 9.30 P.M., when it reached within the jurisdiction of Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa, jeep bearing registration No. PB-11-AX-7803, driven by respondent No.1, came from the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash, negligent VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 and zigzag manner and violently collided with the car. The impact of the collision resulted in grievous injuries to all the occupants of the car. Shallender Behl was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Mansa, where after administration of first aid, he was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident before any effective treatment could be administered. 3. His widow, two children and aged mother instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of his untimely death. It was pleaded that the deceased was a businessman of repute and was regularly filing income tax returns. Compensation was accordingly sought from the driver and owner of the offending jeep. 4. It is an admitted position that the offending vehicle was not covered under any policy of insurance on the date of the accident. 5. The respondents contested the claim petition by filing separate written statements. Besides denying negligence on the part of respondent No.1, it was pleaded that a false criminal case had been registered against him and that the accident had occurred because the car in which the deceased was travelling was itself being driven rashly and negligently. Consequently, liability to pay compensation was disputed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the offending jeep. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was carrying on business and that his income stood duly established from the income tax returns proved on record. 7. Taking the annual income of the deceased as ₹3,97,499/-, deducting one-third thereof towards personal and living expenses and applying the multiplier of 14 keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at ₹37,10,000/-. Besides, an amount of ₹25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses & last rites and ₹1,00,000/- VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 towards consortium, thereby awarding a total compensation of ₹38,35,000/- together with interest. Since the offending jeep was admittedly uninsured, respondents No.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 8. Aggrieved only with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has confined the challenge to the computation of compensation. It is contended that although the Tribunal rightly accepted the annual income of the deceased on the basis of documentary evidence, it failed to grant any addition towards future prospects. According to the learned counsel, since the deceased was 45 years of age and was self-employed, addition of 25% towards future prospects was mandatory in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is further submitted that there being four dependants, namely the widow, two children and the mother of the deceased, deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been restricted to one- fourth instead of one-third, in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is thus argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal falls short of the "just compensation" contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has fairly not disputed that in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to addition towards future prospects. However, it is submitted that while re-computing the compensation, the statutory liability of the deceased towards payment of income tax must necessarily be deducted from his annual income before determining the multiplicand. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 12. At the very outset, it deserves notice that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving have attained finality. Neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 has preferred any appeal or filed any cross-objections questioning the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Likewise, the finding that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident and that respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award, has also remained unchallenged. Consequently, the said findings call for no interference and are affirmed. 13. The controversy in the present appeal, therefore, is confined exclusively to the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Before undertaking the exercise of re-computation, it would be apposite to notice that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a statutory obligation upon the Claims Tribunal as well as the appellate Court to award "just compensation". The expression "just compensation" has repeatedly been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to mean compensation which is fair, equitable and founded upon settled legal principles. The determination is neither intended to result in unjust enrichment of the claimants nor in an award which is so meagre as to defeat the beneficial object of the legislation. The endeavour of the Court, therefore, is to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the actual pecuniary loss suffered by the dependants on account of the untimely death of the breadwinner by applying settled principles with uniformity and consistency. The Supreme Court has reiterated this approach in Kirti and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166, observing that while computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts must adopt a realistic and pragmatic approach so that the award truly answers the statutory requirement of "just compensation". 15. Tested on the aforesaid touchstone, the computation made by the Tribunal deserves modification on certain aspects. 16. There is no dispute with regard to the annual income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal assessed the same at ₹3,97,499/- on the basis VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 of the income tax returns proved on record. The said finding is founded upon cogent documentary evidence and has not been assailed by either side. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the assessment of annual income made by the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the annual income is rounded off to ₹3,97,500/-. 17. The first grievance raised by the appellants merits acceptance. While determining the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal failed to make any addition towards future prospects. Such an approach is no longer legally sustainable in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). 18. The Constitution Bench, after examining the earlier precedents, held that the concept of "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act necessarily embraces the future earning potential of the deceased. The Court recognised that the income of an individual ordinarily does not remain static throughout his working life and that denial of future prospects would result in an unrealistic assessment of the financial loss suffered by the dependants. It was accordingly held that in the case of a self-employed person or a person on a fixed salary below the age of fifty years, 25% of the established income is required to be added towards future prospects. 18. The aforesaid principle has subsequently been reiterated in Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that once the income of the deceased stands established, the benefit of future prospects cannot be denied merely because the deceased was self-employed. The Court observed that after the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the addition towards future prospects has become an integral component of determination of just compensation and is no longer confined only to persons holding permanent employment. 19. In the present case, the deceased was admittedly 45 years of age on the date of the accident. Consequently, the claimants are legally entitled to an addition of 25% towards future prospects. After adding 25%, the annual income of the deceased works out to ₹4,96,875/-. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 20. The next question pertains to deduction of income tax while computing the multiplicand. The submission advanced on behalf of respondents in this regard deserves acceptance. The purpose of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate the dependants for the actual pecuniary benefit, which they have been deprived of on account of the death of the earning member. Compensation cannot, therefore, be calculated on that portion of the income which the deceased was under a statutory obligation to pay to the State by way of income tax. 21. In Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the income of the deceased falls within the taxable limits, the statutory liability towards income tax is liable to be deducted while determining the multiplicand. The Court observed that the assessment of compensation has to be founded upon the net income actually available to the deceased after meeting statutory tax obligations and not upon the gross taxable income. 22. In the present case, after addition of future prospects, the annual income comes to ₹4,96,875/-. During the relevant assessment year, income up to ₹2,50,000/- was exempt from tax. On the remaining taxable income, the liability towards income tax works out to ₹24,687/-. After deducting the said statutory liability, the annual income available for computation of dependency comes to ₹4,72,188/-. 23. The next error committed by the Tribunal pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. The learned Tribunal deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses. However, such deduction is contrary to the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved a standardised formula with a view to bringing uniformity and certainty in the assessment of compensation. It was held that where the deceased leaves behind four to six dependants, deduction towards personal and living expenses should ordinarily be restricted to one-fourth of the income. The standardisation introduced in Sarla Verma (supra) was subsequently approved by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) and continues to hold the field. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 24. Admittedly, the deceased is survived by his widow, two children and his aged mother. Thus, there were four dependants upon the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenses. Applying the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), only one-fourth of the net annual income is liable to be deducted. Consequently, the annual contribution of the deceased to his family works out to be ₹3,54,141/-. 25. The multiplier of 14 applied by the Tribunal is strictly in consonance with the age of the deceased and the multiplier table approved in Sarla Verma (supra) and reaffirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned counsel for the appellants has also not disputed the application of the said multiplier. Accordingly, no interference is called for on this aspect. 26. Applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency works out to be ₹49,57,974/-. 27. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads also requires modification to bring it in conformity with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench standardized the compensation payable under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, with a view to ensuring uniformity and consistency in awards passed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that consortium is not confined merely to spousal consortium but also includes parental consortium and filial consortium, recognising the loss of love, affection, companionship, care and guidance suffered by different members of the family. 28. The legal position was further clarified in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, (2020) 11 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that consortium is a distinct and independent head of compensation payable to each eligible claimant and that no separate amount is liable to be awarded towards "loss of VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 love and affection", as the said element stands subsumed within consortium. The same principle was reiterated in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others, (2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein it was held that every eligible claimant is independently entitled to consortium in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance (Supra). 29. In the present case, the deceased has left behind his widow, two children and his mother. Consequently, all the four claimants are independently entitled to consortium of ₹40,000/- each, aggregating to ₹1,60,000/-. The claimants shall further be entitled to ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 30. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the claimants is re- computed as under: Head of Compensation Amount (₹)  Annual income 3,97,500  Add : 25% towards future prospects 99,375  Gross annual income 4,96,875  Less : Income tax 24,687  Net annual income 4,72,188  Less : 1/4th towards personal expenses 1,18,047  Annual contribution to the family 3,54,141  Total Loss - Multiplier of 14 49,57,974  Consortium (₹40,000 × 4) 1,60,000  Loss of estate 15,000  Funeral expenses 15,000 Total Compensation 51,47,974 31. Since the learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of ₹38,35,000/-, the appellants become entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹13,12,974/-, which is rounded off to ₹13,13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand only). VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2016 2026:PHHC:101193 32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves modification only to the extent of quantum of compensation. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The compensation payable to the appellants-claimants is enhanced by ₹13,13,000/-, over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal. 33. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimants in the same ratio and manner as directed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award. 34. Since the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident has attained finality and has not been challenged by either of the respondents, respondents No.1 and 2 shall continue to remain jointly and severally liable to satisfy the enhanced award. 35. The amount shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which it shall carry the same rate of interest till realization. On deposit, the learned Tribunal shall release the amount to the claimants in terms of the apportionment already directed in the award, after due verification of their identity and subject to adjustment of any amount already received. 36. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 23.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document