FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.09.2026 Nirmala Devi @ Nirmil Devi and others ..... Appellants Versus Ravinder Kumar and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER ***** Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.22,20,400/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) vide award dated 04.10.2022 passed in MACP Case No.01 of 2022, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the “1988 Act”) on account of death of Dinesh Ram in a motor vehicular accident. 2. The appellants-claimants are the wife, father as well as children of deceased (Dinesh Ram), respectively. 3. Briefly, the present appellants-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of death of Dinesh Ram in a motor vehicular accident on the plea that on 15.09.2021 at about 7.00 PM, Dinesh Ram DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 2 alongwith Ravinder Ram and Om Parkash, after doing their labour work, were returning to village Bhaini Amirpur. Dinesh Ram and Om Parkash were on one bicycle and Ravinder Ram was on his separate bicycle. When they reached on Hansi-Jind Road at Rajthal T-point and started towards village Rajthal, in the meantime, a private Bus bearing registration No. HR-39E-4000 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) being driven by Ravinder Kumar-respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came and directly struck into the bicycle of Om Parkash and Dinesh Ram from backside and ran away from the spot alongwith his Bus. Due to the said impact, Dinesh Ram received serious injuries on his person. Dinesh Ram was shifted to the hospital at Narnaund, where first aid was given and thereafter, he was referred to General Hospital, Hisar, where Dinesh Ram expired during treatment. In respect of the accident, case FIR No.566 dated 16.09.2021 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Narnaund. At the time of accident, Dinesh Ram (deceased) was 34 years old. 3.1 The claim petition was contested by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle by filing their written statement. They denied the factum of accident having taken place with the offending vehicle. It was stated that the police has lodged a false case. It was further stated that the liability, if any, is of the insurance company (respondent No.3) and prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. 3.2 On the other hand, respondent No.3-Insurance Company also filed its separate written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the manner of accident, death of Dinesh Ram in accident, quantum of compensation and also the entitlement to compensation were DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 3 denied. It was also stated that no accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Liability to pay compensation was also denied on the ground that Ravinder Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle) was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of occurrence and that the driver and owner had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1 Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No. HR- 39E-4000 resulting into death of Dinesh Ram? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so to how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the insured/owner of the offending vehicle has violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so to what effect? OPR 4. Relief.” 5. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence (oral as well as documentary) on the aforesaid issues. 6. Learned Tribunal under issue No.1 held that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing registration No.HR-39E-4000 by Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1) resulting in death of Dinesh Ram. 6.1 Further, while determining compensation, learned Tribunal considered the age of deceased-Dinesh Ram as 34 years, however since DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 4 the appellants-claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased, accordingly, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at the time of accident. 6.2 Learned Tribunal further granted 40% of the notional income towards future prospect and assessed the annual loss of income as Rs.1,68,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/5th of the income has been deducted towards personal expenses, accordingly, the annual dependency was determined as Rs.1,34,400/-. Considering the age of the deceased- Dinesh Ram, a multiplier of 16 was applied by the Tribunal and the appellants-claimants have been held entitled to compensation of Rs.21,50,400/- on account of loss of income. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.15,000/- have been added for funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- have been added for loss of estate. That apart, appellant No.1-Nirmala Devi (wife of deceased-Dinesh Ram) has been further granted consortium amount of Rs.40,000/-. In this manner, the appellants-claimants have been held entitled to total compensation of Rs.22,20,400/-. 6.3 Learned Tribunal further directed that respondent No.1- Ravinder Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle); respondent No.2- Dinesh Kumar (owner of the offending vehicle) and respondent No.3- Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, however, since the offending vehicle was duly insured, accordingly, the insurance company has been directed to pay the compensation to the claimants. Learned Tribunal has further awarded interest @6% per annum on the awarded compensation, payable from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Learned Tribunal DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 5 further directed that the compensation be paid in the following manner:- “21……. Out of the awarded amount, 40% be paid to petitioner No. 1 being widow, 10 % each be paid to petitioners No. 2 to 7 i.e. father, sons and daughters. The amount falling to share of minor petitioners shall be deposited in nationalised Bank in shape of FDR for a period till they attain the age of majority or for a period of three years whichever is later. 50% amount falling to the share of petitioners No.1 to 4 be also deposited in shape of FDR for three years. FDR after expiry of period mentioned above be released to petitioners after due identification through bank accounts to the petitioners under intimation to this court. ….” 7. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, inter alia, on the following grounds:- “a) that the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased on the lower side as Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas he used to earn Rs.14,000/- per month; b) that the Tribunal has not granted any amount for loss of estate and love and affection; c) that the Tribunal has not granted appropriate compensation towards transportation charges and funeral expenses; and d) that the Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation under the head of consortium to all the claimants.” 8. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper-book with his able assistance. DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 6 10. Keeping in view the nature of the order being passed, the desirability of issuance of notice is not felt, so as to save time and also to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses upon the respondents. 11. As regards the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased on the lower side; it is observed that the appellants-claimants claimed that the deceased-Dinesh Ram was earning Rs.14,000/- per month, however, except the bald statement of appellant No.1-Nirmala Devi (wife of deceased-Dinesh Ram), no other evidence has been placed on record which may indicate that the deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. Nothing has been produced in the form of bank statement of the deceased to show that he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month and depositing the same in the bank. Once there is no documentary evidence as regards the income of the deceased (Dinesh Ram), accordingly, I see no error in the assessment of notional income made by the learned Tribunal as Rs.10,000/- per month on the basis of the relevant minimum wages as on the date of accident. Further, since the age of the deceased (Dinesh Ram) was 34 years, accordingly, learned Tribunal has made an addition of 40% towards future prospects and correctly applied a multiplier of 16. Still further, as there are seven claimants, learned Tribunal has correctly made 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased- Dinesh Ram. Therefore, the assessment of compensation of Rs.21,50,400/- on account of loss of income by the learned Tribunal, does not call for any interference by this Court. 11.1 At the same time, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal by taking note of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 7 case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, has granted Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. However, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 61(viii) has observed as under:- “61(viii) 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.” 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), I am of the view that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses are required to be enhanced by 10% as the accident in question had occurred on 15.09.2021, therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.16,500/- on account of loss of estate, Rs.44,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.16,500/- as funeral expenses. 13. Further, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and another, 2021 (11) SCC 780, after considering the judgment rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/- and loss of parental consortium to each child @ Rs.40,000/-. Further, in case of Smt. Anjali and others vs. Lokendra Rathore and others, 2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 229, it was held that each of the parent is entitled to consortium. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, I am DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 8 of the considered view that all the claimants are entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, namely, appellant No.1-Nirmala Devi (wife of the deceased-Dinesh Ram) is entitled to spousal consortium, appellant No.2-Mahender Ram (father of the deceased-Dinesh Ram) is entitled to filial consortium and appellants No.3 to 7 are entitled to parental consortium. 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by modifying the award passed by the learned Tribunal, in the manner indicated above, by granting following compensation:- Sr No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income/ dependency Rs.21,50,400/- Rs.21,50,400/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (spousal consortium to appellant No.1 only) Rs.44,000/- each to all 7 claimants (spousal/filial/parental) = Rs.3,08,000/- Total Rs.22,20,400/- Rs.24,91,400/- 16. Therefore, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,91,400/- as against Rs.22,20,400/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the enhanced amount of Rs.2,71,000/- shall also carry interest at the same rate and from the same date as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The apportionment and manner of disbursement of the compensation amongst the appellants-claimants shall remain the same, DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1174-2023 (O&M) 9 as directed by the learned Tribunal. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable however, since the offending vehicle was duly insured, accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation to the appellants-claimants, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 17. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. 02.09.2026 (HARSH BUNGER) dinesh JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH 2026.09.03 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document