[109] Jahur and a Parveen an Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] awarded by account of 28.02.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR FAO-4506 Date of De r and another versus een and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate an for the appellants-claimants. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate Company. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Claimants are in appeal, seeki ded by learned Motor Accident Claim unt of death of their son-Mustafa in .2018. Learned Tribunal awarded com “20. The question for determin are entitled for future prospects of the deceased has been proved record that the deceased was of death. Therefore, while drawing the Full Bench of the Hon'ble National Insurance Company L 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 (SC) the claimants-petitioners are ent of the deceased towards future p the age of 40 to 50 years. Thus deceased for the purpose of co taken as ₹1,01,976/- (₹8498/- x 1 PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 4506-2022 (O&M) of Decision : 28.11.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN and Mr. Akash Patyal, Advocate ocate for respondent No.3-Insuranc , seeking enhancement of compensatio t Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karnal, fa in a motor vehicular accident date ed compensation, observing as under: rmination is as to whether the petitione pects or not. In the present case, incom oved and it has also been established of the age of 21 years at the time of h ing support from the view expressed n'ble Supreme Court in the case titl ny Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Or (SC), the Tribunal is of the opinion th e entitled to 40% addition in the incom re prospects, as the deceased was belo hus, on computation, the income of t f computation of compensation is to x 12) per annum. Exemption stipulate surance ensation rnal, on nt dated under:- tioners ncome shed on of his sed by titled d Ors. n that ncome s below of the s to be ulated RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.01 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4506-2022 (O&M) -2- for income tax during the relevant year was ₹2,50,000/-, and as such no tax was payable. Therefore, by addition of 40% to ₹1,01,976/-, his income is taken as ₹1,42,766/- (₹1,01,976/- + ₹40,790/-) per annum. 21. The other question for determination is as to what amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses to arrive at multiplicand. It is admitted fact that deceased was bachelor. Had the deceased been married, then, of course, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would have been based upon the number of the claimants/dependents, however, in the present case, the deceased, being bachelor had left legal heir, i.e. his parents and therefore, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as held in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October, 31, 2017. If 50% of the income is deducted from the annual income of the deceased, i.e. Rs.1,42,766/-, then it comes to Rs.71,383/- (Rs.1,42,766 minus Rs.71,383/-). 22. As far as the dependency of the claimants is concerned, the claimants have pleaded in their claim petition that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased Mahabir. Perusal of the file shows that the claimants are parents of the deceased Mustafa. No contrary evidence was proved by the respondents. Thus, the claimants no.1 and 2, being the parents/legal heirs of the deceased Mustafa, are considered as dependents upon the income of the deceased Mahabir. 23. Since the deceased was in the age group of 21-25, the suitable multiplier will be '18'. On computation the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to ₹71,383/-x 18 = ₹12,84,894/-, to which an amount of 15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses should be added. 24. The total amount of compensation, thus, comes to ₹13,14,894/-(₹12,84,894/- + ₹15,000/- + ₹15,000/-). The issue is, accordingly, answered in favour of petitioners.” RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.01 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4506-2022 (O&M) -3- [2] Learned counsel for the appellants submits that nothing has been paid to the appellants for loss of parental consortium and even the amount awarded under the Head of loss of estate and the funeral expenses also need to be enhanced. [3] Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company does not dispute in view of ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case(s) of ‘National Insurance Company versus Pranay Sethi’, 2017(4) PLR 693 and ‘Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram’, (2018) 18 SCC 130, each of the claimants will be entitled to ₹ 48,000/- for loss of parental consortium. [4] Ordered accordingly. [5] Amount paid for loss of estate is also enhanced from ₹ 15,000/- to ₹ 18,000/-. ₹ 15,000/- awarded for funeral expenses is also enhanced to ₹ 18,000/-. [6] With the aforesaid modification in the Award, the appeal stands disposed off. [7] Needless to say, the rate of interest as well as apportionment shall abide by the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. [8] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 28.11.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.01 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document