IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. FAO-4131-2023 (O&M) Shamsher @ Shamsher Sharma and Another . . . . Appellants Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others . . . . Respondents II. FAO-4728-2023 (O&M) Chander Parkash and Others . . . . Appellants Vs. Shamsher and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 01.09.2026 Pronounced on: 02.09.2026 Pronounced fully/opera:ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ajay Kadyan, Advocate for the appellants- claimants in FAO-4728-2023. Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the appellants in FAO-4131-2023. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of FAO No.4728 of 2023, filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa4on, and FAO No. 4131 of 2023, filed by respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehi- cle, assailing the Award dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat. 2. The claimants are the parents and sisters of deceased Mohit, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 28.02.2020 involving three-wheeler NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.02 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4131-2023 (O&M) FAO-4728-2023 (O&M) bearing registra4on No.HR-45-B-4275. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹15,89,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident 4ll realiza4on. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner fairly states that the finding regarding rash and negligent driving is not being pressed in the present appeal. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on the said aspect does not require any further examina4on by this Court. 4. The surviving controversy, therefore, relates to the quantum of compensa4on; and the direc4on, whereby the insurer has been granted recovery rights against the driver and owner. Enhancement 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ₹10,000/- per month. The deceased was stated to be earning ₹13,500/- per month, but the said income was not supported by documentary evidence. PW-3, who was running the establishment, where the deceased had worked, stated that he was being paid ₹450/- per day, but no documentary record regarding employment or payment of wages was produced. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed his income at ₹10,000/- per month. 6. The deceased was aged about 18 years and 8 months. The Tribunal rightly applied 40% addi4on towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, and applied mul4plier of 18, resul4ng in loss of dependency of ₹15,12,000/-. The said computa4on is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Naonal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. 7. No ground for interference with the aforesaid component has been made out. 8. The Tribunal, however, awarded only ₹44,000/- under the head of consor4um. The deceased was unmarried and survived by his father, mother NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.02 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4131-2023 (O&M) FAO-4728-2023 (O&M) and two sisters. The law regarding consor4um is no longer res integra. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised filial consor4um and held that the parents of an unmarried deceased are en4tled to compensa4on for loss of consor4um. The principle was subsequently affirmed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sander Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwa, (2020) 9 SCC 644. 9. The concept of consor4um is rela4onship-specific and is not to be treated as one composite amount for the en4re family. In the facts of the present case, the parents and sisters, who are the claimants, are en4tled to consor4um in their respec4ve capacity. Accordingly, the amount of ₹44,000/- is liable to be awarded to each of the four claimants. 10. Thus, the amount under the head of consor4um stands enhanced from ₹44,000/- to ₹1,76,000/-. 11. The amounts awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. ₹16,500/- each, are maintained. 12. The compensa4on is consequently re-worked as under: Par:culars Amount Loss of dependency ₹15,12,000/- Consor4um to four claimants @ ₹44,000/- each ₹1,76,000/- Loss of estate ₹16,500/- Funeral expenses ₹16,500/- Total ₹17,21,000/- 12. Thus, the claimants are en4tled to ₹17,21,000/-, resul4ng in an enhancement of ₹1,32,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing the claim pe44on 4ll realisa4on. Liability of insurer and recovery rights NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.02 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4131-2023 (O&M) FAO-4728-2023 (O&M) 13. The Tribunal has held that the vehicle possessed a route permit valid for the municipal limits of Karnal plus 5 kilometres, whereas the accident occurred beyond the authorised area. On this basis, while fastening the primary liability upon the insurer, it granted the insurer the right to recover the amount paid from the driver and owner. 14. The aforesaid direc4on, however, cannot be sustained. The fact that a transport vehicle was being plied beyond the territorial limits men4oned in its permit may cons4tute an infrac4on of the regulatory provisions governing the permit, but such infrac4on, by itself, cannot be treated as a breach of the terms and condi4ons of the contract of insurance so as to absolve the insurer of its liability towards third-party claimants. 15. In Pratap Singh v. Naonal Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2014 (3) Law Herald 2651, this Court has examined the ques4on of breach of permit condi4ons in the context of the insurer's liability and held that the insurer, in order to avoid its statutory liability, has to establish a breach of the terms and condi4ons of the insurance policy falling within the permissible defences under Sec4on 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A mere infrac4on of the regulatory requirements, without establishing a breach of the insurance policy condi4ons in the manner contemplated by Sec4on 149(2), would not en4tle the insurer to avoid its liability. 16. In the present case, the insurance policy admiJedly covered the offending vehicle and was valid on the date of accident. The Tribunal itself found that the driver possessed a valid driving licence and that the vehicle had a valid permit and fitness cer4ficate. The only circumstance relied upon for gran4ng recovery rights is that the vehicle was found opera4ng beyond the territorial area specified in the permit. 17. Such circumstance, in the facts of the present case, cannot be elevated to the status of a breach of the insurance policy so as to confer a right of recovery upon the insurer. Page 4 of 5 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.02 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4131-2023 (O&M) FAO-4728-2023 (O&M) 18. Consequently, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured and sa4sfy the award without any right of recovery against respondents No.1 and 2. The finding of the Tribunal gran4ng recovery rights to respondent No.3, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Conclusion 19. For the reasons aforesaid: (A) FAO No.4728 of 2023 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The compensa4on awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹15,89,000/- to ₹17,21,000/-. The enhanced amount of ₹1,32,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing the claim pe44on 4ll realisa4on (B) FAO No.4131 of 2023 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 20. The direc4on of the Tribunal gran4ng respondent No.3-insurer the right to recover the compensa4on from respondents No.1 and 2 is set aside. Respondent No.3 shall be liable to sa4sfy the en4re award, including the enhanced compensa4on, without any right of recovery against respondents No.1 and 2. 21. The remaining terms and condi4ons of the Award, including the appor4onment and disbursement of the compensa4on, shall remain un- changed. Both appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Pending applica4on(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 02.09.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.02 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document