1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH ARH AT CHANDIGARH UNJAB & v. FAO-2180-2002
Case Details
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH ARH AT CHANDIGARH UNJAB & HARYANA 210 Harcharan Sing n Singh and Another State of Haryan aryana and Others versus FAO-2180-2002 (O&M) Date of decision:21.11.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents CORAM: HON : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMO ARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for appellants. for ap Mr. Abhinav Mahant, Asst. A.G., Har Haryana *** PARMOD GO D GOYAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been preferred by Prese ed by the parents of the deceased, Rajpal Singh (h ngh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘dec eceased’), who had died in a road accident w dent which took place on 20.06.199 6.1996, on account of rash and negligent drivin driving of Haryana Roadways bus be bus bearing registration No. HR- 02-A-8860, cha 0, challenging the impugned award d ard dated 05.01.2001 passed by the Motor Acci r Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandig andigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ ’), vide which the appellants we nts were found entitled to total compensation o tion of Rs.1,56,000/-. 2. Since the factum of the accident is n Since nt is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the in the impugned award passed by th by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to here to herein for sake of brevity. 3. The Tribunal in the present case h The T case has awarded the following compensation: tion:- Monthly Income Month Deduction De Rs. 3,000/ 3,000/- month per month Rs.36,000/- per annum 1/3rd SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2180-20 2002 (O&M) Multiplier Mu otal Compensation Total Co awarded aw -2- 14 Rs. 1,56,000/- 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the appellants- Learn -claimants does not challenge the income of e of the deceased as assessed, howe however, the amounts awarded under the head head of multiplier is stated to be e on the lower side. It was asserted that no no addition has been made towa towards future prospects which ought to be 40 be 40% in terms of judgment of H t of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insur Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prana Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680. Lea . Learned counsel for the appellants llants-claimants also asserts that since the age o age of the deceased was 24 years, m ears, multiplier of ‘18’ ought to have been appli applied as per the judgment of Smt. Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Tran i Transport Corporation & Anr., , 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 770. Also, the amou amounts under conventional heads heads i.e loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss , loss of consortium are not in c in consonance with National Insurance Com e Company Limited Vs. Pranay Set ay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680, Magma G gma General Insurance Company pany Limited Vs. Nathu Ram alias Chuhu R hu Ram & Ors., 2018 (18) SCC 13 CC 130 and N. Jayasree & Ors. Vs. Cholamand amandalam M.S General Insurance urance Company Ltd, 2021 (4) il) 642. RCR (Civil) 642 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respon Per co respondent No.1 has vehemently argued that suff at sufficient amount has already been y been awarded as compensation in the present ca sent case and there is no scope of enha f enhancement. 6. In the present case, since no challen In the challenge has been made by the learned counsel ounsel for the appellants-claimants to o the income of the deceased as assessed by ed by the Tribunal, the same is acco is accordingly upheld. Since the SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2180-20 2002 (O&M) -3- deceased was 2 was 24 years of age at the time of a e of accident, multiplier of ‘18’ would be applic applicable instead of ‘14’ as per the er the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt in case of Sarla Verma (supra supra). The Tribunal has erred in not making any ng any addition towards loss of futur f future prospects. In the present case since the d e the deceased was 24 years of age, an age, an addition of 40% would be applicable as pe e as per the law laid down in Pranay S anay Sethi (supra). The Learned Tribunal initia ally took the deduction as 1/3rd b by presuming deceased would be married lat ter deduction of 2500 was mad de from income to calculate loss of depende pendency. Keeping in view that the de t the deceased was a bachelor and the number of d er of dependants are two, the deducti eduction ought to have been 1/2. The appellants ellants-claimants shall also be enti entitled to compensation of Rs.7,500/- towa towards funeral expenses, Rs.7,500/ 7,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- to e to each of the appellants-claimants mants towards filial consortium. 7. Accordingly, Accor the re-worked com compensation to which the appellants-claim claimants are entitled to is as under: nder:- Income In Future uture Prospects Deduction Ded Mu Multiplier Tota Total loss of dependency depe Loss of Estate Loss o Funeral uneral Expenses Loss of parental Loss o consortium to conso aimant nos. 1 & 2 claimant tal Compensation Total Co warded in appeal awarded tal Compensation Total Co awarded by the award SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.3,000/- - onth per month 40% (Rs.3,000+1200 0+1200) 1/2 (Rs.4,200-2100 2100) Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.4,200/- Rs.2,100/- 18 2,100 x 12 x 1 12 x 18 18 Rs.4,53,600/- Rs. 15,000/- x x 2 Rs. 7,500/- Rs. 7,500/- Rs. 30,000/- Rs.4,98,600/- Rs. 1,56,000/- FAO-2180-20 2002 (O&M) -4- Tribunal Tri hanced amount of Enhanced compensation comp Rs.3,42,600/- Rs 4,98,000/ ,000/- (awarded in appea appeal) – ,000/- Rs 1,56,000/ d by the (awarded by th Tribunal) 8. The claim petition is accordingly al The c gly allowed in the above terms. The appellants llants-claimants shall also be entitled entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum annum on enhanced compensation so ion so awarded from date of filing of claim petiti petition till realization. The appor apportionment and liability of respondents sha nts shall be as per the award. The . The awarded amount shall be deposited within within six weeks from the date of this of this order. 9. In view of the decision by the H In vi the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Sin er Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. Ors. AIR 2025 SC 1713, after calculation of th n of the enhanced amount the same b ame be transferred by respondent No.1 in the ban he bank account(s) of the appellants- -claimants within a period of six weeks from s from today. The particulars of the b f the bank account(s) along with requisite docum documents in support thereof sh of shall be furnished by the appellants-claim claimants to respondent No.1 with within a period of two weeks from today and y and needful shall be done by respon respondent No.1 after verification thereof within ithin a period of four weeks therea thereafter along with up-to-date interest. 21.11.2025 Sunil Chander (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE Whethe Whethe ether speaking/reasoned ether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document