IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4827 of 2024 (O&M) Kamlesh Devi and others . . . Appellants vs. Mahender Singh and others . . . . Respondents * * ** Reserved on: August 26, 2026 Pronounced on: August 27, 2026 Pronounced fully/operative part : Fully * * * * CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Raghav Bali, Mr. Pram Mehta, Advocates for Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Suraj Mandhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for resondent No.2. Mr. Vikas Chaudhary and Mr. Shirin Chaudhary, Advocates 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, Karnal vide award dated 05.05.2023 in MACP No.29 of 2020, whereby an amount of ₹5,94,322/- along with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded on account of death of Jile Singh in a motor vehicular accident. 2. The deceased Jile Singh, aged about 57 years, died in the accident dated 23.11.2019. The claim petition was filed by his widow Kamlesh Devi and his five children. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ₹8,827/- SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4827 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 120099 per month on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer, added 10% towards future prospects and applied multiplier of 9. It deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses on the premise that claimant No.1, the widow, was the only dependent. It further awarded ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium, thereby making the total compensation ₹5,94,322/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two-fold grievance. Firstly, it is submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses and the deduction should have been restricted to 1/4th. Secondly, it is submitted that consortium ought to have been awarded to all the claimants and not confined to the widow. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, the same does not merit any acceptance. The Tribunal specifically recorded that claimants Nos.2 to 6 were major and that there was no evidence to establish that they were unable to earn. It was further noticed that their dependency upon the deceased had not been established. Consequently, claimant No.1, the widow, alone was held entitled to compensation on account of loss of dependency. 5. The deduction towards personal and living expenses is to be determined with reference to the number of dependents, and not merely the number of legal representatives. The fact that there were six claimants, by itself, does not justify a deduction of only 1/4th when, on the evidence, only one of them was found to be financially dependent upon the deceased. 6. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the hon’ble Supreme Court prescribed the general parameters for deduction towards personal expenses with reference to the number of dependents. Where the deceased leaves one dependent, deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses is the appropriate norm. 7. In the present case, no material has been brought to the notice of this Court, which would warrant interference with the factual findings of the Tribunal that only the widow was dependent upon the deceased. SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4827 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 120099 Consequently, the deduction of 50% cannot be faulted. The first contention of the appellants is, accordingly, rejected. 8. The second contention stands on a different footing and deserves acceptance. The Tribunal awarded ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium, but the said amount was awarded only to claimant No.1, the widow of the deceased. 9. The law relating to consortium has undergone considerable development. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that consortium is not confined to spousal consortium and recognised, inter alia, parental consortium and filial consortium. The principle was thereafter reiterated and applied in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780. 10. The entitlement to consortium is a consequence of the relationship between the claimant and the deceased and represents compensation for the loss of the benefits of the relationship—such as companionship, care, guidance and affection. It is conceptually distinct from the compensation payable towards loss of dependency. 11. Consequently, dependency for the purpose of computing loss of dependency cannot be imported as a condition for entitlement to consortium. The two heads operate in different fields. 12. The fact that claimants Nos.2 to 6 are major children, or that some of them might be married, therefore, cannot by itself disentitle them from parental consortium. Marriage does not sever the relationship of parent and child, nor does a major child ceases to be a child of the deceased for the purposes of the conventional head of consortium. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself awarded parental consortium to children in addition to spousal consortium to the widow. The conventional head is not restricted to those who were financially dependent upon the deceased. SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4827 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 120099 14. The distinction between dependency and consortium is particularly important in the present case. The finding of the Tribunal that the five children were not dependents is relevant while determining the multiplicand and the deduction towards personal expenses. It cannot, however, be utilised to deny them compensation for the loss of parental consortium arising from the death of their father. 15. Accordingly, claimant No.1, being the widow, is entitled to spousal consortium and each of claimants Nos.2 to 6 is entitled to parental consortium. 16. As regards the quantum, the amount under the conventional heads is required to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case and subsequent judgments, including the applicable enhancement for the passage of time. The Tribunal had awarded ₹40,000/- towards consortium. 17. The accident occurred on 23.11.2019 and the award was passed on 05.05.2023. Having regard to the prevailing conventional amount and the subsequent application of the principle of enhancement, the consortium payable to each eligible claimant is taken at ₹44,000/-. 18. Thus, the widow Kamlesh Devi is entitled to ₹44,000/- towards spousal consortium and each of the five children, namely, Rajesh, Reena Devi, Kirna Devi, Rita Devi and Raja, is entitled to ₹44,000/- towards parental consortium. 19. The consortium payable to each of the six claimants is quantified at ₹44,000/-. Thus, the total amount payable towards consortium comes to be ₹2,64,000/- (₹44,000/- × 6). 20. Since the Tribunal has already awarded ₹40,000/- towards consortium, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of ₹2,24,000/- (₹2,64,000/- − ₹40,000/-) under this head. 21. Consequently, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹5,94,322/- to ₹8,18,322/- (₹5,94,322/- + ₹2,24,000/-). SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4827 of 2024 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 120099 22. The enhanced amount of ₹2,24,000/- shall carry an interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its final realization. 23. The finding of the Tribunal regarding deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses is not being disturbed. The present enhancement is confined to the component of consortium. 24. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 27, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No Whether reportable? : Yes/No Uploaded on: August 27, 2026 SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document