2025:HHC:38318 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 37 of 2015 Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Decided on : 14.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ __ Seema Nepali and others ...Appellants Versus Shiv Lal and another ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Mr. Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge The appellants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in terms of award dated 17.09.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P., in MACT No. 59-S/2 of 2011, titled Seema Nepali and others versus Shiv Lal and another, awarding a compensation of 4,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the ₹ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:38318 date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts which require consideration in the present appeal are that late Bhim Bahadur Nepali met with an accident on 16.04.2001, when he was traveling in Tractor bearing registration No. HP 33-3318, which was going from Narkanda to Jawarda and when the tractor reached near Gahan, it met with an accident. The deceased suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 17.04.2001 vide Ex. PW-1/A. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was instituted by the present appellants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Appellant No. 1 is the wife of deceased and appellants No. 2 & 3 are son and daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal on the basis of the material placed before it, took the income of the deceased as 3,000/- per month, since he ₹ was working as labourer and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses took annual income of 24,000/- ; and since the age of the ₹ deceased was 30, multiplier of 16 was applied. Besides this, the Tribunal below awarded an amount of 50,000/- to appellant No. 1 ₹ being wife of the deceased as consortium and further a sum of ₹10,000/- was awarded towards funeral charges. Since the vehicle 3 2025:HHC:38318 in question was insured with respondent No. 2/ insurance company, it was directed to indemnify respondent No. 1 qua the compensation amount and out of the total compensation amount 60% was awarded in favour of appellant No. 1 and 20% each in favour of appellants No. 2 & 3. 4. The appellants being dis-satisfied with the inadequte compensation awarded by the Tribunal have prayed for modification on the grounds that the income of the deceased assessed at 3,000/- ₹ per month is on the lower side and further the multiplier applied should have been 17 instead of 16, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Sarla Verma (SMT) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5. It has also been pleaded and argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal below has failed to appreciate that on account of untimely death, the appellants have suffered pain, agony, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and appellants No. 2 & 3 have not been awarded any amount under the head of consortium. The learned counsel pressed into service the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and contended that since the age of 4 2025:HHC:38318 the deceased was 30, the multiplier ought to have been applied of 17 instead of 16 and further as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants No. 2 & 3 being son and daughter of deceased were entitled to parental consortium. Since, the Tribunal below has not awarded any amount on account of parental consortium, the award deserves to be modified. Not only this, learned counsel has also laid emphasis that the appellants have not been awarded any amount on account of loss of estate and on this part amount deserves to be granted to them. He also submitted that as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the amount under the head “loss of estate”, “loss of consortium” and “funeral expenses” should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and thus prayed that the award under challenge may be modified. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, representing respondent No. 2 has supported the award and contended that since there is no documentary evidence with respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal below has rightly taken the income of the 5 2025:HHC:38318 deceased as 3,000/- per month and further the Tribunal in its ₹ wisdom has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. He further submitted that since the Tribunal below has awarded just and fair compensation, the award under challenge does not require any interference. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. As far as the first plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal below has erred while taking the income of the deceased 3,000/- is concerned, the said contention ₹ deserves to be rejected simply on the ground that firstly the accident had taken place on 16.04.2001, when the wages of labourer were about 100/- per day and the Tribunal below has thus rightly taken ₹ the income of the deceased as 3,000/- per month. ₹ 9. ₹ 9. The second plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to wrongly applying multiplier of 16 deserves to be accepted in view of the dictum of the Constitution Bench Judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), wherein between the age group of 26 to 30 the multiplier of 17 has been held to be applied. 10. As far as the third contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants with respect to not grant the consortium to 6 2025:HHC:38318 appellants No. 2 & 3 is concerned, the same deserves to be accepted in view of the judgment rendered in Magma General Insurance Company Limited case (supra), and thus appellants No. 2 & 3 are held entitled to 50,000/- each on account of parental consortium. ₹ 11. The last plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appellants have not been awarded any amount on account of loss of estate also deserves to be accepted and further the plea that the Tribunal has awarded funeral charges at the rate of 10,000/- is on the lower side also deserves acceptance. Since, the ₹ Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has held that the amount on account of “loss of estate”, “loss of consortium” and “funeral expenses” should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years, the appellants are held entitled to a sum of 19,000/- for ₹ loss of estate and 19,000/- for funeral expenses. ₹ 12. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as 3,000/- per month, which does not require any ₹ interference. However, the multiplier of 16 is enhanced to 17 and the amount of consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3 is awarded at the rate of 50,000/- each. The amount of funeral charges which was ₹ assessed at 10,000/- is enhanced to 19,000/- and since no amount ₹ ₹ has been awarded by the Tribunal for loss of estate, a sum of 7 2025:HHC:38318 19,000/- is awarded to the appellants. Thus, the total compensation ₹ to which the appellants/ claimants are entitled, is determined as under :- 1. Monthly Salary ₹ 3,000/- 2. Deduction 1/3rd ₹ 3,000 - 1000 = 2000/- ₹ ₹ 3. Annual loss of dependency ₹ 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/- ₹ 4. Multiplier 17 ₹ 24,000 x 17 = 4,08,000/- ₹ 5. Loss of estate ₹ 19,000/- 6. Loss of consortium ₹ 50,000/- each x 3 = 1,50,000/- ₹ (appellants No. 1 to 3) 7. Funeral charges ₹ 19,000/- Total amount of compensation ₹ 5,96,000/- 13. No other points have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 14. In view of the above, the award passed by the Tribunal below is modified and a total sum of 5,96,000/- is awarded in ₹ favour of appellants No. 1 to 3, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual realization. However, the apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. Respondent No. 2/ Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 90 days from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 14 th November , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge