IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** I. FAO-1430-2021 (O&M) Jay Raj Bhatta and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Shambhu Mukhia and others . . . . Respondents **** II. FAO-1675-2020 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited . . . . Appellant Vs. Jay Raj Bhatta and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on:16.07.2026 Pronounced on: 20.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Jasvinder Singh Saini, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO-1430-2021 and for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO-1675-2020. Mr. Anjali Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO-1675-2020 and for respondent No.3-Insurance Company in FAO-1430-2021. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals arise out of the common award dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. FAO-1675-2020 has been preferred by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking its reduction; whereas FAO-1430-2021 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1430-2021 2026:PHHC:098257 FAO-1675-2020 of the compensation. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award and involve common questions of fact and law relating to the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, they are being decided together. 3. Along with FAO-1430-2021, the claimants have also filed CM No.9860-CII-2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the appeal. As the application has a bearing on the maintainability of the claimants' appeal, the same is being considered first. 4. The facts, to the extent relevant for adjudication of the present appeals, are that on 23.08.2016, Laxmi Prasad Bhatta was proceeding on his scooter from his residence situated in Village Fazilpur to his place of employment i.e. M/s V & S International Private Limited, Khandsa, Gurugram. Near Begumpur Khatola Chowk, Gurugram, truck bearing registration No. HR- 55V-8555, allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the scooter of the deceased. Owing to the impact, the deceased fell on the road and the front wheel of the truck ran over his body, resulting in multiple fatal injuries. Though he was immediately moved to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Consequently, FIR No.392 dated 23.08.2016 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Badshahpur, Gurugram against respondent No.1. 5. The parents of the deceased instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of ₹50,00,000/-. It was pleaded that the deceased was about 24 years of age and was employed with M/s V & S International Private Limited, Khandsa, Gurugram, earning a monthly salary of ₹14,500/-. The accident, according to the claimants, was solely attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed a joint written statement denying the allegations regarding rash and negligent driving. They, however, pleaded that the vehicle VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1430-2021 2026:PHHC:098257 FAO-1675-2020 stood duly insured with respondent No.3 and that respondent No.1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence. It was thus contended that in the event of any liability being fastened, the insurer alone would be liable to indemnify the insured. 7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing a separate written statement. Besides disputing the claim on merits, it pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and that the insured had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy by not informing the insurer about the accident. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues and permitted the parties to adduce evidence. 9. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-55V-8555 by respondent No.1, resulting in the death of Laxmi Prasad Bhatta. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was 24 years of age and was employed with M/s V & S International Private Limited at a monthly salary of ₹14,500/-. Treating the deceased as a permanent employee, the Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 18. The loss of dependency was accordingly assessed at ₹31,32,000/-. A further sum of ₹15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate was awarded and the total compensation was assessed at ₹31,62,000/-. The driver, owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization. 10. Aggrieved thereby, both sides are before this Court. The claimants seek enhancement solely on the ground that no compensation has been awarded towards filial consortium. The insurer, on the other hand, assails the award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in deducting only one-third towards personal expenses and in adding 50% towards future prospects. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1430-2021 2026:PHHC:098257 FAO-1675-2020 11. Before adverting to the merits of the rival appeals, it would be appropriate to consider CM No.9860-CII-2021 filed by the claimants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing FAO-1430-2021. 12. The explanation furnished in the application is that appellant No.1 is an aged person suffering from chronic heart disease as well as Hepatitis-B and remained under medical treatment for a considerable period. It is further stated that the appellants were residents of Nepal, were unaware of their legal remedy of appeal and could approach their counsel only after returning to India, whereafter the appeal was filed without any further delay. 13. The explanation appears to be bona fide. The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the matter is decided on merits. Sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is thus made out. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 14. The findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-55V-8555 by respondent No.1 and the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured have not been assailed before this Court. Those findings have, therefore, attained finality. 15. The controversy before this Court is confined only to the determination of just compensation. The insurance company has questioned the award principally on two grounds : (i) that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses instead of one-third; and (ii) that addition of 50% towards future prospects was not justified. The claimants, on the other hand, seek enhancement only on the ground that no compensation has been awarded towards filial consortium. 16. Deduction towards personal expenses : The claim petition was filed only by the parents of the deceased. Although the claim petition is silent regarding the marital status of the deceased, during the course of arguments VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1430-2021 2026:PHHC:098257 FAO-1675-2020 learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased had been married but his wife had expired. Be that as it may, neither the wife nor any child of the deceased was a claimant before the Tribunal. The only dependants claiming compensation are his parents. 17. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, while laying down standardized principles for assessment of compensation, has specifically held that where the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are only the parents, deduction towards personal expenses should ordinarily be 50% since a young person would be expected to spend half of his income upon himself. Even where the deceased is married but only the parents claim dependency and there is no evidence of any other dependant, compensation has to be determined on the basis of the actual dependents before the Court. 18. In the present case, there is no evidence that any person other than the parents was financially dependent upon the deceased. Consequently, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting only one-third of the income towards personal expenses. The appropriate deduction is 50%. 19. Future prospects : The second contention of the insurer also deserves consideration. The salary certificate and employment record produced by PW-2 from M/s V & S International Private Limited establish that the deceased was working as an employee drawing monthly wages of ₹14,500/-. The witness also proved that he was serving on a regular basis with the company. 20. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Constitution Bench held that where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and had permanent employment, addition of 50% towards future prospects is required to be made. 21. The deceased was only 24 years old and the evidence on record establishes that he was in regular employment. The Tribunal was, therefore, VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1430-2021 2026:PHHC:098257 FAO-1675-2020 fully justified in making addition of 50% towards future prospects. The objection raised by the insurance company on this score is accordingly rejected. 22. Reassessment of compensation : The monthly income of the deceased has rightly been assessed at ₹14,500/-, which comes to ₹1,74,000/- annually. After adding 50% towards future prospects, the annual income becomes ₹2,61,000/-. Deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the annual contribution to the family works out to ₹1,30,500/-. Applying the multiplier of 18 corresponding to the age of 24 years in terms of Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to ₹23,49,000/-. 23. The Tribunal has awarded ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, which are in consonance with Pranay Sethi (supra) and require no interference. 24. However, the Tribunal omitted to award compensation towards filial consortium. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Supreme Court recognised that parents are entitled to filial consortium on the death of a child. 25. Accordingly, both the claimants are entitled to ₹40,000/- each towards filial consortium. 26. The compensation is thus recalculated as follows: Head Amount Loss of dependency ₹23,49,00/- Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- Loss of estate ₹15,000/- Filial consortium (₹40,000 × 2) ₹80,000/- Total ₹24,59,000 27. The Tribunal awarded compensation in excess of what is legally payable because of the incorrect deduction of only one-third towards personal expenses. Although the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of filial consortium, the amount payable under that head is substantially less VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1430-2021 2026:PHHC:098257 FAO-1675-2020 than the excess awarded by the Tribunal under loss of dependency. Consequently, the net compensation payable is liable to be reduced to ₹24,59,000/-. 28. Accordingly, FAO No.1675 of 2020 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. The impugned award is modified and the compensation is reduced from ₹31,62,000/- to ₹24,59,000/-, together with the rate of interest and other conditions imposed by the Tribunal. 29. FAO No.1430 of 2021 filed by the claimants succeeds only to the limited extent that compensation towards filial consortium is held payable. However, since on the overall reassessment the compensation stands reduced on account of the correct deduction towards personal expenses, no further enhancement is ultimately payable. The appeal filed by the claimants is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. 30. Both the appeals stand disposed of. 31. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected appeal. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on:20.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document