IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-319-2022 Raj Kala and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Swaran Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 25.08.2026 Pronounced on: 27.08.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, vide award dated 15.09.2021. 2. Briefly stated, the claimants are the widow and three sons of deceased Puran Chand. On 21.09.2016, the deceased, while sitting in his i-10 car, which was stationed on the left side of the road in the area of Talwandi Chaudharian, was hit from behind by truck/dumper bearing registration No. PB-46-M-0142, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, where he was declared brought dead. FIR No.70 dated 22.09.2016 was registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian. The deceased was stated to be 42 years of age and engaged in the business of mobile phones. 3. The claim petition was contested only by respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Respondents No.1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, were proceeded against ex parte. 4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, held the accident to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-319-2022 2026:PHHC: 120342 deceased's monthly income was assessed at ₹15,000/-. Applying 30% towards future prospects, deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency was assessed at ₹24,57,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded ₹40,000/- towards consortium to the widow, ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses, making the total compensation ₹25,27,000/-. The Tribunal also directed respondent No.3-Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount from respondents No.1 and 2, holding that the vehicle was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in not granting interest for the period from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award; that consortium has been granted only to the widow, whereas the children are also entitled to filial consortium; and that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, while opposing the appeal, submits that since the deceased was 42 years of age, the addition towards future prospects could only be 25% and not 30%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company. 7. Respondents No.1 and 2 have not contested the appeal and were proceeded against ex parte. 8. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 9. The first question is regarding the income of the deceased. The claimants had initially stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning ₹30,000/- per month, whereas in evidence his income was stated to be ₹80,000/- per month. The Tribunal noticed that the statement of account produced by the claimants did not establish any fixed monthly income and no income-tax return or other cogent documentary evidence had been produced VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-319-2022 2026:PHHC: 120342 to substantiate the higher income claimed. It accordingly assessed the monthly income at ₹15,000/-. 10. Having regard to the nature of evidence available on record, no ground is made out for interference with the aforesaid assessment. The income of the deceased is, accordingly, maintained at ₹15,000/- per month. 11. The next question relates to future prospects. The Tribunal, treating the deceased as 42 years of age, had made an addition of 30% towards future prospects. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company is right in submitting that, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in the case of a self-employed person between 40 and 50 years of age, the appropriate addition towards future prospects is 25%. To this extent, the computation made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be in conformity with the settled legal position. 13. However, the Insurance Company has neither preferred an appeal nor filed cross-objections seeking reduction of the compensation on this ground. The present appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement. Though the appellate Court is entitled to notice the correct legal position, a reduction in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, to the prejudice of the appellants, is not warranted in the facts of the present case merely on the basis of a contention raised by the respondent-Insurance Company without any independent challenge to the award. 14. Accordingly, while holding that the legally applicable addition towards future prospects is 25%, this Court does not consider it appropriate to reduce the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal on that account. The amount towards loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal is maintained. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-319-2022 2026:PHHC: 120342 15. The claimants next challenge the award on the ground that consortium has been granted only to claimant No.1-widow. The Tribunal had awarded ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 alone. 16. The objection is well founded. The entitlement to consortium is not confined to spousal consortium. The children of the deceased are also entitled to filial consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has recognised the entitlement of children to filial consortium. Accordingly, claimants No.2 to 4, being the sons of the deceased, are also entitled to compensation under the head of filial consortium. 17. Consequently, claimants No.2 to 4 are awarded ₹40,000/- each towards filial consortium. Thus, the amount under the head of consortium stands enhanced from ₹40,000/- to ₹1,60,000/-, resulting in an enhancement of ₹1,20,000/-. 18. The grievance regarding interest also deserves acceptance. The Tribunal, in the operative part of the award, directed that the awarded amount would carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 02.03.2017, till actual realization only if the compensation amount was not paid within three months from the date of the award. 19. Thus, as the award presently stands, if the awarded amount were deposited within three months from the date of the award, the claimants would get no interest for the period during which the claim petition remained pending, i.e. from 02.03.2017 till 15.09.2021. The reference to interest from the date of filing of the petition is, therefore, conditional upon non-payment within three months and does not confer an unconditional entitlement to pendente lite interest. 20. There is no finding that the claimants were responsible for any delay in adjudication of the claim petition. Once compensation has been determined as payable from the date of the accident, denial of interest for the period during which the claim remained pending, merely because the awarded VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-319-2022 2026:PHHC: 120342 amount is deposited within three months after the award, would not advance the object of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Interest is intended to compensate the claimants for being kept out of the amount found payable to them. 21. The direction regarding interest is, accordingly, modified. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from 02.03.2017, i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition, till actual realization. The condition making the accrual of interest dependent upon non-payment within three months from the date of award is set aside. The enhanced amount towards filial consortium shall also carry interest at the same rate from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 22. As regards recovery rights, the Tribunal noticed that respondents No.1 and 2 had failed to contest the proceedings and no material was produced by them to rebut the plea of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the amount from respondents No.1 and 2. 23. No ground has been shown warranting interference with the aforesaid finding. The direction granting recovery rights to respondent No.3- Insurance Company against respondents No.1 and 2 is accordingly maintained. 24. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by ₹1,20,000/- towards filial consortium, payable to claimants No.2 to 4 at the rate of ₹40,000/- each. The total compensation consequently stands enhanced from ₹25,27,000/- to ₹26,47,000/-. 25. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 02.03.2017 till actual realization, subject to adjustment of any amount already paid/deposited along with proportionate interest. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-319-2022 2026:PHHC: 120342 26. The assessment of income at ₹15,000/- per month, the loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal, and the direction granting recovery rights to respondent No.3-Insurance Company are affirmed. 27. It is clarified that although 25% is the legally applicable addition towards future prospects, no reduction is being made in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on that account, the present appeal being filed by the claimants only, and the Insurance Company having neither preferred an appeal nor filed cross-objections seeking such reduction. 28. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 27.08.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes Uploaded On: 27.08.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document