IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Nisha and others II. Nisha and others Ram Singh and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE Present: - Mr.Harsh Aggarwal and Mr.Parit Aggarwal, Advocates, for the appellant in FAO for respondent No.5 in FAO Mr. for the for respondents No.1 to 3 in FAO DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals arise out of the same Award dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, and therefore are being decided together. Company seeking reduction of the compensa been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement thereof. 2. The facts, insofar as they are relevant for adjudication of these appeals, are not in dispute. In a motor vehicular accident IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nisha and others **** Nisha and others Vs. Ram Singh and others **** Reserved on: 01.09 Pronounced on: 02.09 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Mr.Harsh Aggarwal and Mr.Parit Aggarwal, Advocates, for the appellant in FAO-1764-2017 and for respondent No.5 in FAO-7465- Mr.Nitin K. Sharma, Mr.Pawan Attri, Advocates, for the appellants in FAO-7465-2017 and for respondents No.1 to 3 in FAO- **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals arise out of the same Award dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, and therefore are being decided together. FAO-1764-2017 has been preferred by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the compensation, whereas been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement thereof. The facts, insofar as they are relevant for adjudication of these appeals, are not in dispute. In a motor vehicular accident IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1764-2017 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent FAO-7465-2017 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent 01.09.2026 .09.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully AK GUPTA Mr.Harsh Aggarwal and Mr.Parit Aggarwal, Advocates, 2017 and -2017. Nitin K. Sharma, Mr.Pawan Attri, Advocates, 2017 and -1764-2014. These two appeals arise out of the same Award dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, and therefore are has been preferred by the Insurance tion, whereas FAO-7465-2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement thereof. The facts, insofar as they are relevant for adjudication of these appeals, are not in dispute. In a motor vehicular accident, which took place on Appellant . . . . Respondents Appellants . . . . Respondents These two appeals arise out of the same Award dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, and therefore are has been preferred by the Insurance has The facts, insofar as they are relevant for adjudication of these which took place on VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAOs-1764 & 7465-2017 2026:PHHC:122909 10.05.2015, Sunil lost his life, when he was hit by Bus No.HR-56A-3680 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident. He was pleaded to be working as an auto-rickshaw driver. 3. The claim petition was instituted by the widow and parents of the deceased seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, a daughter was born to claimant-Nisha and she was also impleaded as a claimant. 4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No.1. The said finding has not been assailed before this Court. Likewise, it is not disputed that the offending bus was insured with the Insurance Company-appellant in FAO-1764- 2017. No breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been established and, consequently, the liability of the insurer to satisfy the award is also not in dispute. 5. The controversy before this Court is, thus, confined to the quantum of compensation. FAO-1764-2017 — Appeal by the Insurance Company 6.1 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that although the deceased was pleaded to be earning ₹15,000/- per month as an auto-rickshaw driver, no documentary or other reliable evidence was produced to establish either his vocation or actual income. It is submitted that the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker in Haryana at the relevant time were approximately ₹5,812/- per month and those applicable to a semi- skilled worker were approximately ₹5,942/- per month. Thus, according to learned counsel, the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income at ₹8,000/- per month. 6.2 It is further contended that the Tribunal wrongly deducted only one-fourth towards personal expenses and that the father could not have been VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAOs-1764 & 7465-2017 2026:PHHC:122909 treated as a dependent. It is also argued that the Tribunal wrongly awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards consortium and ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, besides adding 50% towards future prospects. FAO-7465-2017 — Appeal by the Claimants 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, particularly as no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. 8. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record. 9. The deceased was admittedly only 21 years of age. Though the claimants pleaded that he was working as an auto-rickshaw driver and earning ₹15,000/- per month, no documentary evidence was produced to establish his vocation, ownership/possession of any auto-rickshaw, driving activity, or the actual income allegedly earned by him. A mere assertion in the claim petition, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot form the basis for assessing the income at ₹15,000/- per month. 10. At the same time, the assessment of income in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be made with mathematical exactitude. The Court has to arrive at a reasonable and realistic assessment having regard to the age, occupation, circumstances and the prevailing wages at the relevant time. 11. In the present case, the minimum wages at the relevant time for an unskilled worker were approximately ₹5,812/- per month and those for a semi-skilled worker approximately ₹5,942/- per month. In these circumstances, the assessment of the deceased's notional monthly income at ₹6,000/- would be just and reasonable. The assessment of ₹8,000/- made by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. The deceased was 21 years old and had no established permanent employment or assured source of income. Consequently, the addition towards future prospects has to be determined in accordance with the principles laid VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAOs-1764 & 7465-2017 2026:PHHC:122909 down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. For a deceased below 40 years of age, who was self-employed or was on a fixed income, the addition towards future prospects is 40%.Thus, the monthly income of ₹6,000/- would, after addition of 40% towards future prospects, work out to be ₹6,000 + ₹2,400 = ₹8,400/- per month.The annual income, accordingly, comes to ₹1,00,800/-. 14. The further contention of the Insurance Company that one-third of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenses is without merit.The deceased left behind his widow, parents and a daughter, who was subsequently impleaded as a claimant. The question of dependency has to be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the family and not merely by mechanically excluding a parent from consideration. 15. The principle governing deduction towards personal and living expenses was explained in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anohter, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court prescribed the general rule of deduction with reference to the number of dependants. Where the number of dependent family members is four to six, the normal deduction is one-fourth. 16. In the facts of the present case, there are four claimants, who have been recognised as persons having a claim upon the compensation arising out of the death of the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have committed an error in applying a deduction of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses. 17. After such deduction, the annual loss of dependency would be:₹1,00,800 - 1/4 = ₹75,600/-. 18. The deceased was 21 years of age. As per the age-multiplier table approved in Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 15 to 20 years is 18, and for the age group of 21 to 25 years also the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAOs-1764 & 7465-2017 2026:PHHC:122909 multiplier is 18. Thus, the application of multiplier 18 by the Tribunal calls for no interference. 19. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is ₹75,600 × 18 = ₹13,60,800/ 20. The Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow and another ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The approach requires correction in view of the law subsequently authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. In Pranay Sethi (supra),Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court standardised the amounts payable under the conventional heads and recognised consortium as a distinct head of compensation. Thereafter, in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that consortium is not confined to spousal consortium and includes parental consortium and filial consortium. The principle was reiterated and explained in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780. 22. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to consortium in accordance with their relationship with the deceased. Since there are four claimants—widow, father, mother and daughter, each is entitled to ₹40,000/- under the head of spousal/parental/filial consortium, taking the conventional amount applicable to the accident in question as per Pranay Sethi. 23. Thus, consortium would be₹40,000 × 4 = ₹1,60,000/-. 24. The separate award of ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection cannot, however, be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur (supra) has made it clear that compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is not to be awarded separately once compensation towards consortium is granted. Consortium itself recognises the deprivation of the relationship resulting from the death. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAOs-1764 & 7465-2017 2026:PHHC:122909 25. The claimants are also justified in contending that compensation under the head of loss of estate was omitted by the Tribunal.Under Pranay Sethi (supra), ₹15,000/- is payable towards loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses, subject to the applicable enhancement in accordance with law. Having regard to the accident having occurred in 2015 and the basis of computation being adopted in the present appeal, the amount of ₹15,000/- each under these two heads is appropriate. 26. Accordingly, the compensation is re-computed as follows: Head of compensation Amount  Loss of dependency ₹13,60,800/-  Spousal/parental/filial consortium — ₹40,000 × 4 ₹1,60,000/-  Loss of estate ₹15,000/-  Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- Total ₹15,50,800/- 27. The Tribunal had awarded ₹21,64,000/-. On re-computation in accordance with the principles discussed above, the claimants are found entitled to ₹15,50,800/-. 28. Thus, the Insurance Company's contention that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive has substance. At the same time, the claimants are entitled to an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, which head had been omitted by the Tribunal. However, the said enhancement does not result in any overall enhancement because the compensation under other heads, particularly loss of dependency, consortium and loss of love and affection, requires re-computation. Conclusion: 29. Consequently, FAO-1764-2017 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from ₹21,64,000/- to ₹15,50,800/-. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAOs-1764 & 7465-2017 2026:PHHC:122909 30. FAO-7465-2017 filed by the claimants is partly allowed to the extent that they shall be entitled to ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, and consortium shall stand re-computed in accordance with the principles noticed above. 31. The aforesaid amount of ₹15,50,800/- shall be payable to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation. Any amount already paid/deposited shall be adjusted from the amount now determined. 32. The apportionment and disbursement shall be undertaken by the learned Tribunal in accordance with the respective entitlement of the claimants and the directions contained in the original Award, subject to necessary modification consequent upon the present judgment. 33. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 02.09.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on:02.09.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.02 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document