1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KUSAM LATA AND ANR. ….Appellants JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate HARKESH MANUJA, J. [1]. By way of present appea award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/ as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. Brief Facts [2]. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of the appellants/claimants before the Ld. Tribunal, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver; and for the grant of compensation on account of death of Vijay accident, which took place on 25.11.2008. [3]. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, after appraisal of evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/ driver and awarded FAO IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronounced on: KUSAM LATA AND ANR. ….Appellants Vs JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate and Ms. Alisha Bindal, Advocate for respondent ***** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge came to be laid an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/ as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. [2]. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of the appellants/claimants before the Ld. Tribunal, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver; and for the grant of compensation on account of death of Vijay accident, which took place on 25.11.2008. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, after appraisal of evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/ driver and awarded FAO-358-2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-358-2011(O&M) Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 KUSAM LATA AND ANR. ….Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate and Ms. Alisha Bindal, Advocate for respondents. l, challenge came to be laid an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. [2]. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of the appellants/claimants before the Ld. Tribunal, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver; and for the grant of compensation on account of death of Vijay Kumar in a vehicular The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, after appraisal of evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/ driver and awarded total compensation of 2011(O&M) Reserved on: 13.08.2025 08.2025 .Respondents l, challenge came to be laid an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% [2]. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of the appellants/claimants before the Ld. Tribunal, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver; and for the grant of Kumar in a vehicular The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, after appraisal of evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent total compensation of TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 3,40,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization. [3.1]. Further, liability was fastened upon respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company since respondent No. 1/ driver and respondent No.2/ owner compensation amount was directed to be released in favour of the claimants in the ratio of 15:2. [4]. Being aggrieved of the award dated 02.08.2010, the present appeal was preferred by the appell compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Arguments [5]. L deceased was 19 years old at the time of death, which was duly proved from the deposition of the appellant/claimant No. 2, Amrit Lal and the same evidence. It was further submitted that Vijay Kumar was working with DATA Max Marketing Consultants as of Rs. 7,667/- testimony of Amit Thapar, proprietor of the said concern (PW Ld. Additional Sessions Judge went wrong while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants. He further contended that nothin FAO along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization. Further, liability was fastened upon respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company since respondent No. 1/ driver and respondent No.2/ owner were indemnified by the Insurance Company, and the compensation amount was directed to be released in favour of the claimants in the ratio of 15:2. Being aggrieved of the award dated 02.08.2010, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge need no repetition for the sake of brevity. [5]. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the eceased was 19 years old at the time of death, which was duly proved from the deposition of the appellant/claimant No. 2, Amrit Lal had not been rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence. It was further submitted that Vijay Kumar was working with DATA Max Marketing Consultants as Office Assistant - per month and the said fact testimony of Amit Thapar, proprietor of the said concern (PW Ld. Additional Sessions Judge went wrong while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants. He further contended that nothing has been awarded under the conventional FAO-358-2011 (O&M) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award Further, liability was fastened upon respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company since respondent No. 1/ driver and respondent were indemnified by the Insurance Company, and the compensation amount was directed to be released in favour of the Being aggrieved of the award dated 02.08.2010, the present ants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants by the Ld. Additional need no repetition for the sake of brevity. earned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the eceased was 19 years old at the time of death, which was duly proved from the deposition of the appellant/claimant No. 2, Amrit Lal (PW-1) had not been rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence. It was further submitted that Vijay Kumar was working with Office Assistant, drawing a salary per month and the said fact was corroborated by the testimony of Amit Thapar, proprietor of the said concern (PW-3), thus, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge went wrong while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants. He further g has been awarded under the conventional along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award Further, liability was fastened upon respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company since respondent No. 1/ driver and respondent were indemnified by the Insurance Company, and the compensation amount was directed to be released in favour of the Being aggrieved of the award dated 02.08.2010, the present ants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants by the Ld. Additional earned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the eceased was 19 years old at the time of death, which was duly proved 1) had not been rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence. It was further submitted that Vijay Kumar was working with , drawing a salary was corroborated by the 3), thus, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge went wrong while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants. He further g has been awarded under the conventional TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 heads, therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation as per latest decisions on the subject. [6]. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3- Insurance Company neither even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal called for no interference. [7]. I have heard learned c paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants. Discussion Question of Income Assessed [8]. In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased- Vijay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 19 years of age. He was employed as an office assistant at DATA Max Marketing Consultants and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7667/ However, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge assessed the income of the deceased @ R certificate and his contribution towards Employees Provident Fund which were proved on record, it is evident that the deceased was receiving salary and Ld. Additional Sessions Judge erred while ignoring the same. Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case assesses the income of deceased as Rs. 7667/ available on file. FAO heads, therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation as per latest decisions on the subject. n the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal called for no interference. have heard learned counsel for book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants. Question of Income Assessed In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that Vijay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 19 years of age. He was employed as an office assistant at DATA Max Marketing Consultants and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7667/ r, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge assessed the income of the Rs.4,000/- per month; nevertheless upon perusal of salary certificate and his contribution towards Employees Provident Fund which were proved on record, it is evident that the deceased was receiving salary and Ld. Additional Sessions Judge erred while ignoring the same. Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case assesses the income of deceased as Rs. 7667/- per month in consonanc available on file. FAO-358-2011 (O&M) heads, therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation as n the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the for the parties and perused the book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that Vijay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 19 years of age. He was employed as an office assistant at DATA Max Marketing Consultants and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7667/- per month. r, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge assessed the income of the per month; nevertheless upon perusal of salary certificate and his contribution towards Employees Provident Fund which were proved on record, it is evident that the deceased was receiving salary and Ld. Additional Sessions Judge erred while ignoring the same. Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case assesses the income of per month in consonance with the records heads, therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation as n the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the the parties and perused the book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that Vijay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 19 years of age. He was employed as an office assistant at DATA Max Marketing per month. r, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge assessed the income of the per month; nevertheless upon perusal of salary certificate and his contribution towards Employees Provident Fund which were proved on record, it is evident that the deceased was receiving salary and Ld. Additional Sessions Judge erred while ignoring the same. Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case assesses the income of e with the records TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 [9]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” (Civil) 77, held that in case the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle and 50% needs to be deducted as personal and living expenses. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under: “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the d different principle. In this regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a depend mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will wither be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the fathe “32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non FAO [9]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” held that in case the deceased was a bachelor and the re the parents, the deduction follows a different principle and 50% needs to be deducted as personal and living expenses. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under: “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the d different principle. In this regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a depend mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will wither be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the fathe “32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, FAO-358-2011 (O&M) [9]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” reported as 2009 (3) RCR held that in case the deceased was a bachelor and the re the parents, the deduction follows a different principle and 50% needs to be deducted as personal and living expenses. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under:- “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In this regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will wither be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.” “32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor 50% as the contribution to the family. the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large earning sisters or brothers, “Sarla Verma Vs. 2009 (3) RCR held that in case the deceased was a bachelor and the re the parents, the deduction follows a different principle and 50% needs to be deducted as personal and living expenses. Relevant TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one taken as two [10]. In the case at hand, the deceased was a bachelor and Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses would be appropriate. Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads [11]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others” and “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, (2021) 11 SCC 780, are also required thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/ and Rs. 18,000/ assessed to the tune of Rs. 96,000/ being parent of the deceased, are also entitled to filial consortium. Conclusion [12]. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants are held entitled to grant of compensation in the following manner: S.No. 1. 2. FAO his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” In the case at hand, the deceased was a bachelor and survived by his parents, thus, in view of law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), in the humble opinion of this Court a deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses would be Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads [11]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra) Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others” reported as “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional heads are also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 2) as the appe being parent of the deceased, are also entitled to filial consortium. [12]. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants are held entitled to grant of compensation in the following manner: S.No. Nature Annual Income of Deceased Add 50% of Future Prospects FAO-358-2011 (O&M) his personal and living expenses may be restricted tribution to the family will be In the case at hand, the deceased was a 19-years old survived by his parents, thus, in view of law laid down in the humble opinion of this Court a deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses would be Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads [11]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex ’s case (supra), “National Insurance Co. reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, reported as compensation awarded under conventional heads to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are as compensation under funeral head towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is re- (Rs. 48,000 x 2) as the appellants, being parent of the deceased, are also entitled to filial consortium. [12]. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants are held entitled to grant of compensation in the following manner:- Amount (in Rs.) Annual Income of Deceased 92,004/- Add 50% of Future Prospects 46,002/- old survived by his parents, thus, in view of law laid down in the humble opinion of this Court a deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses would be [11]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex “National Insurance Co. (2017) 16 SCC 680 reported as compensation awarded under conventional heads to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are as compensation under funeral head - llants, [12]. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. [13]. In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, approved in a subsequent judgment titled as vs. K.L. Naraya grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. FAO Total Income (Rs. 92,004 + Rs. 46,002) Deduction (1/2) Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 18 as per age of 19 years Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 2) Total Compensation 10. Amount Awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge 11. Enhanced Compensation In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as approved in a subsequent judgment titled as vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. FAO-358-2011 (O&M) Total Income (Rs. 92,004 + Rs. 1,38,006/- 69,003/- Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 18 as per age of 19 12,42,054/- 18,000/- 18,000/- Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 96,000/- 13,74,054/- Amount Awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge 3,40,000/- Enhanced Compensation 10,34,054/- In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others na Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance (2009) (4) SCC 513 “Puttamma and others the grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document 7 [14]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. [15]. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 28, 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder FAO [14]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. [15]. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) FAO-358-2011 (O&M) [14]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal [15]. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE [14]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal [15]. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.08.30 08:23 I agree to specified portions of this document