1 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cross Objection No.24 of 2020 in FAO No.154 of 2021 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Kamla Devi & Anr. …Non-Cross Objectors/Appellants Versus Manohar Lal & Ors. …..Respondents/Cross Objector Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Non Cross Objectors : None. For the Cross Objector : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral): In this case, FAO No.154 of 2021, filed by claimants-Kamla Devi and another, was dismissed in default, on 03.06.2026. 2. In the said FAO, the present cross objections have been filed by New India Assurance Company Limited, which has now, been decided by this Court. 3. As pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, the learned MACT has granted 50% increase, on account of the future prospects of deceased-Daulat Ram, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income has been taken, as Rs.9,000/-, whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, 2 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) reported in (2017), 16 Supreme Court Case 680 has mandated that some addition is required to be given on account of future prospectus for all the category of persons and for different ages with permanent job, self employed or fixed salary. Relevant paragraphs 52, 59.3, 59.4, 59.5, 59.7, 59.8 are reproduced as under:- “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum- centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent 3 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 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.” 4. Admittedly, deceased-Daulat Ram was working in unorganized sector, as such, addition of 40% is required to be made, on account of future prospects. Consequently, the monthly income of deceased, thus, comes to Rs.8400/- per month (Rs.6000/-+40%) 5. Deceased-Daulat Ram, at the time of death was bachelor. As such, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, 50% deduction is required to be made on account of personal 4 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) expenses. Thus, by deducting 50% from monthly income, his monthly contribution towards his family comes to Rs.4200/- per month. 6. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘15’ of Daulat Ram. At the time of his death, the age of Daulat Ram has been proved to be 36 years. 7. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4200x12x15= Rs.7,56,000/- 8. In the present case, the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of estate, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral expenses, which admittedly are contrary to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). As such, the said findings are required to be interfered with. 9. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, all the claimants are held entitled for the amount under the head loss of consortium. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 24, are reproduced as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Seth(supra) dealt with the various heads under which 5 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance,“consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company society, corporation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline guidance and training. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parents has lost their minor child, or unmarried son of daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A fe High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “ loss of consortium”. As laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the preset case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and sister of the deceased, as amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium.” 6 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) 10. As such, claimants are also entitled for the amount of compensation under conventional head i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The entitlement of the claimants, thus, ascertain as under:- 1.Loss of contribution=Rs.7,56,000/- 2.Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/- 3.Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/- 4.Loss of consortium= Rs.80,000/- Total= Rs.8,66,000/-(Rs.7,56,000/-+ Rs.15,000/-+Rs.15,000/-+Rs.80,000/-) 11. The interest rate, which has been awarded by the learned MACT, as 9% is liable to be reduced, as 7.5%, keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest of the nationalized banks. Ordered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, the amount of compensation is ordered to be reduced from Rs.10,35,000/- to Rs.8,66,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of petition, till the realization of whole amount from the Insurance Company. 13. Consequently, the present cross objections are allowed. The awarded amount is reduced, in the above terms. 14. Memo of costs be prepared. 7 ( 2026:HHC:28019 ) 15. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 16. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge July 09, 2026 (subhash)