FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellants vs. DES SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents Reserved on:- 06.03.2026 Pronounced on:- 09.03.2026 Uploaded on: 16.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for cross-objectors/respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 (proceeded against ex parte). **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. FAO-922-2017 1. For orders, see detailed order of the even date passed in FAO- 912-2017, titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur and others”. CM-26951-CII-2018 1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the cross-objection. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -2- 2. Notice in the application. 3. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of appellant and contends that he has no objection if the application is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors contends that the they would not ask for interest for the delayed period. 5. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. 6. The delay of 96 days in filing the cross-objection is condoned. XOBJC-233-CII-2017 1. The present cross-objection has been preferred against the award dated 19.07.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.3,73,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Santo Bibi in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 13.03.2015. 2. As sole issue for determination in the present cross-objection is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3. The learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present cross-objection be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -3- 4. Per contra, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the cross-objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -4- married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. * * * * * * 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -5- 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:- (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand; (B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -6- reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. * * * * * 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -7- should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -8- consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training". 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -9- 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium. 9. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the deceased was 59 years at the time of accident. The factum of age is not disputed by either of the party before this Court. Consequently, the age of the deceased is taken as 59 years and learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 9. 10. A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased was stated to be an agricultural labourer, earning Rs.20,000/- per month. No documentary evidence substantiating her income was produced before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking income of deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to reassess the income of the deceased as a homemaker. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -10- 11. This Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as ‘Jasbir Singh and another Vs. Surjit Singh and others’, decided on 22.03.2018 while assessing the notional income of the housewife has held as under:- “In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673), made the following observations:- “Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9000/-. As per him once the notional income had been taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses. This argument is flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The accident in the present case took place after 23 years. In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is something more than a mere skilled worker it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum." 7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -11- Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding nature. 8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond measurable economic parameters, encompassing household management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and well- being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court must factor in this indispensable contribution, which would otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced. In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife at Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, the award requires interference by the Court.” 12. In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased-Santo Bibi at Rs.9,000/- per month. 13. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 towards personal expenditure of the deceased. Furthermore, the amount granted for loss of consortium is on the lower side and no amount is granted for loss of estate, therefore, this award requires indulgence of this Court. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -12- CONCLUSION 14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present cross-objection is allowed. The award dated 19.07.2016 is modified accordingly. The claimants/cross- objectors are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made hereunder:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Monthly Income Rs.9,000/- 2 Future prospects @ 15% Rs.1,350/- (15% of 9,000) 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/3 Rs.3,450/- (10,350 X 1/3) 4 Total Income Rs.6,900 (10,350 – 3,450) 5 Multiplier 9 6 Annual Dependency Rs.7,45,200/- (6,900 X 12 X 9) 7 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 8 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- 9 Loss of Consortium Parental: Rs.40,000 x 1 Spousal: Rs.40,000 x 1 Rs.80,000/- 10 Total Compensation Rs.8,65,200/- 11 Deduction Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,73,400/- 12 Enhanced amount Rs.4,91,800/- (8,65,200-3,73,400) 15. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the claimants/cross- objectors are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-922-2017 & XOBJC-233-CII-2017 -13- 16. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest (excluding the period of delay of 96 days in filing the cross-objection) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/cross-objectors. The claimants/cross- objectors are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal. 17. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. 09.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes MOHD AYUB 2026.03.16 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.