COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4149-2023 (O&M) Smt. Joginderi Devi & Ors. v. Umesh Mishra & Ors.

at Civil Hospital, Sonipat. FIR regarding the occurrence was duly registered against respondent No.1. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.08 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4149-2023 (O&M)

3. The claim pe**on under Sec*on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the widowed mother, unmarried sister, unmarried brother and married sister of the deceased seeking compensa*on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondents contested the claim pe**on. Upon apprecia*on of the evidence, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently awarded compensa*on of ₹48,67,016/- along with interest in favour of the claimants.

4. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹29,568/- a4er excluding certain allowances from the salary of ₹36,728/- reflected in the salary slip. Fi4y per cent addi*on towards future prospects was granted, mul*plier of 18 was applied and deduc*on of 50% towards personal expenses was made considering that the deceased was unmarried.

5. Assailing the award on the quantum of compensa*on, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal erred in excluding allowances from the salary of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased was serving as a Constable in Haryana Armed Police and was drawing gross monthly salary of ₹36,728/- as per salary slip Ex.P6. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Na(cid:4)onal Insurance Company Limited vs. Nalini and ors.” 2024 (2) PLR 671, to contend that allowances such as HRA, transport allowance and other admissible benefits cannot ordinarily be excluded while assessing income for the purpose of compensa*on. It is further contended that the deduc*on towards personal expenses ought to have been one-third instead of one-half because apart from the widowed mother, the unmarried sister and unmarried brother were also dependent upon the deceased. It is also argued that all the claimants were en*tled to filial consor*um.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has argued that since the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal rightly applied 50% deduc*on towards personal expenses in view of the law laid down in “Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:4)on and anr.”, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.08 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4149-2023 (O&M) (2009) 6 SCC 121. It has also been contended that the income tax liability of the deceased is liable to be deducted while compu*ng annual income.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the par*es and have carefully gone through the record.

8. At the outset, it may be no*ced that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as well as the liability of the respondents have not been challenged before this Court. Consequently, the only issue requiring considera*on is with regard to the adequacy of compensa*on awarded by the Tribunal.

9. The salary slip (Ex.P6) clearly demonstrates that the deceased was drawing gross monthly salary of ₹36,728/-. The learned Tribunal excluded certain allowances while determining the income of the deceased. However, the said approach cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance Company Limited vs. Nalini (supra), wherein it has been held that allowances forming part of the regular salary and taxable income cannot be excluded merely on the ground that they are personal in nature. The object of awarding compensa*on under the Motor Vehicles Act is to grant “just compensa*on” under Sec*on 168 of the Act and therefore the actual earning capacity of the deceased has to be realis*cally assessed. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be taken as ₹36,728/-.

10. The deceased was admiIedly serving in Government service as a Constable in Haryana Armed Police. Therefore, addi*on of 50% towards future prospects has rightly been granted in terms of the Cons*tu*on Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na(cid:4)onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. The annual income of the deceased thus comes to be ₹4,40,736/-.

11. The conten*on raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding deduc*on of income tax liability deserves acceptance. Since the annual income exceeded the taxable limit applicable at the relevant *me, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.08 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4149-2023 (O&M) the statutory tax liability is to be deducted while compu*ng loss of dependency. A4er deduc*ng the permissible exemp*on of ₹2,50,000/- and applying tax at the rate applicable to the remaining income, the tax liability comes to ₹19,074/-. Consequently, the annual income a4er deduc*on of income tax works out to ₹4,21,662/-. A4er adding 50% towards future prospects, the annual income comes to be ₹6,32,493/-.

12. The next ques*on pertains to deduc*on towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Although ordinarily in the case of an unmarried deceased, deduc*on of 50% is applied as per the ra*o laid down in “Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:4)on and anr.” (supra) yet the said principle is not inflexible. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that where other family members such as dependent siblings or surviving parent are financially dependent upon the deceased, a lower deduc*on may be jus*fied depending upon the facts of the case. In the present case, the deceased had already lost his father and had le4 behind a widowed mother, unmarried sister and unmarried brother. In the social and economic circumstances of the family, it can safely be inferred that the unmarried siblings were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, deduc*on of one-third towards personal expenses would meet the ends of jus*ce.

13. A4er applying one-third deduc*on, the annual loss of dependency comes to ₹4,21,662/-. Applying mul*plier of 18 in accordance with the age of the deceased, the total loss of dependency works out to ₹75,89,916/-.

14. The learned Tribunal further erred in restric*ng consor*um only to the mother of the deceased. In view of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and reiterated in subsequent judgments, siblings and parents are also en*tled to filial consor*um. Accordingly, all the claimants are held en*tled to consor*um at the rate of ₹44,000/- each. Besides this, the claimants shall also be en*tled to ₹16,500/- each under the conven*onal heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.08 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4149-2023 (O&M) Accordingly, the compensa*on is recalculated as under: Head of Compensa:on Amount Annual dependency ₹4,21,662/- Mul*plier of 18 ₹75,89,916/- Filial consor*um (₹44,000 × 4) ₹1,76,000/- Loss of estate Funeral expenses ₹16,500/- ₹16,500/- Total Compensa*on ₹77,98,916/-

15. Since the learned Tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹48,67,016/-, the enhanced compensa*on comes to ₹29,31,900/-.

16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants-claimants shall be en*tled to enhanced compensa*on of ₹29,31,900/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe**on *ll actual realiza*on. The liability to pay the enhanced compensa*on shall remain joint and several upon all the respondents.

17. It is further directed that out of the total compensa*on amount, including the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, 40% each shall be payable to the widowed mother and unmarried sister of the deceased, whereas 10% each shall be payable to the unmarried brother and married sister along with propor*onate interest accrued thereupon. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

08.05.2026 Nee(cid:3)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Uploaded on.: 08.05.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.08 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document