Sinha, vs Deepak Kumar

Judgment

1. This order shall dispose of above m This bove mentioned two appeals filed by ed by the same appellants llants challenging the award dated 1 ated 14.02.2023 passed by the lear e learned Motor Accident cident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad habad (hereinafter referred to as “ as “the Tribunal”) on the on the ground of quantum, whereby ereby a sum of ₹23,42,400/- was gran s granted on account of the t of the death of husband of appellant ellant No.1 namely Sharawan Kumar Kumar @ Sharvan Kumar a umar and a sum of ₹3,00,000/- was gra as granted on account of the death of ath of her minor son, Muke , Mukesh Kumar, who died in a motor motor vehicular accident on 21.05.20 .05.2020. For the sake of c e of convenience, the facts are being being taken from FAO No.2166 of 6 of 2023

titled as ‘Smt. Ni t. Nirmla Devi Vs. Malkit @ Malkiy alkiyat and Others.’

2. Learned counsel for the appella Lear ppellants contends that the impugn impugned common award d ward dated 14.02.2023 passed by the by the learned Tribunal is unjust, ille st, illegal FAO-2166-2023 23 (O&M) -2-(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) and arbitrary, as ry, as it has awarded a meager comp compensation despite the fact that b that both claim petitions ar ions arise out of the same accident date nt dated 21.05.2020, caused solely due ely due to the rash and negl d negligent driving of the offending B ding Bolero Pick-Up bearing registrat gistration No.HR-62A-649 6498 (hereinafter referred to as o as the offending vehicle) driven riven by respondent No.1, t No.1, who came on the wrong side of de of the road and hit the motorcycle orcycle of the deceased, res ed, resulting in the death of Sharawa arawan Kumar as well as his minor inor son Mukesh Kumar. umar. Furthermore, the learned Tri d Tribunal erred in not granting fi ting filial consortium to th to the parents of the deceased in te d in terms of the law laid down by n by the Hon’ble Supreme upreme Court in Magma General Ins l Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram a am and others, 2018 (4) (4) RCR (civil) 333 and reiterated i rated in New India Assurance Co. Ltd . Ltd. v. Somwati and ot d others, 2020 (9) SCC 644. Add . Additionally, in the case of death death of Sharawan Kumar Kumar aged 37 years, the learned Tri ed Tribunal has erroneously assessed sessed his monthly income come @Rs.13,050/- per month where whereas he was a Mason by profess rofession and therefore, at ore, at least his income ought to have have been taken Rs.15,000/- per mon er month, applied an incor incorrect multiplier and granted in ted inadequate compensation under under the conventional hea al heads. Subsequently, in the case o case of death of minor Mukesh Kum h Kumar aged 11 years, th ars, the learned Tribunal has committe mmitted a patent illegality by awardin warding a lump sum compe compensation, ignoring the settled prin ed principle that a minor victim cannot cannot be equated with a n ith a non-earning person and that mini t minimum wages applicable to a skil a skilled worker are requi required to be adopted along with m ith multiplier and future prospects as ects as of law laid down by wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in urt in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sin Sinha, 2025 INSC 124 1244 and judgment rendered by d by this Court in Rakesh Kumar ar Vs. Deepak Kumar mar and others 2025 PHHC 15

155673. Consequently, the learn e learned Tribunal also com lso committed an error in not awardin warding adequate rate of interest, thou st, though the appellants we nts were legally entitled to higher int her interest from the date of filing of ing of the FAO-2166-2023 23 (O&M) -3-(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) claim petitions ti ions till realization. Lastly, it is submi submitted that the entire approach of ach of the learned Tribunal ibunal is contrary to law and evidenc vidence on record, thereby necessitat essitating interference by t e by this Hon’ble Court for enhance hancement of compensation in both both the connected appeal rder. appeals by passing a common order.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for resp Per r respondent No.3 submits that the aw the award passed by the le the learned Tribunal does not suffer suffer from any irregularity or infirm infirmity, and that the findi e findings recorded therein are well- -reasoned on the basis of the mate e material available before efore the learned Tribunal. It is accor accordingly contended that no ground ground is made out for inte or interference in appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for th I ha for the parties and examined the reco e record, with their able as able assistance.

5. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a The is a beneficial and welfare legislat egislation intended to prov o provide just, fair and reasonable c able compensation to victims of mo of motor accidents and th and their families. The objective of ve of the statute is not to award to ard token amounts but to e ut to ensure restitution, to the extent p tent possible, for the loss suffered. In ed. In the present case, for for the death of minor Mukesh kesh Kumar, aged about 11 years, years, the learned Tribunal ibunal awarded a lump-sum compensa pensation of ₹3,00,000/- whereas in eas in the case of death of ath of a school going child, notional tional income ought to have been tak en taken. Learned counsel unsel for the appellants has rightly pl htly placed reliance upon the judgmen gment of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in Karuna Parma armar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 IN 5 INSC 1244, wherein it rein it has been held that a minor vic or victim cannot be equated with a n ith a non- earning person an rson and that the income of such a vict a victim must be assessed on the basis e basis of minimum wages wages applicable to a skilled worker orker, with addition of future prospe prospects and application o ation of the appropriate multiplier. Sim er. Similar principles have been reitera reiterated FAO-2166-2023 23 (O&M) -4-(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) by this Court in ourt in Rakesh Kumar v. Deepak ak Kumar and others, 2025 PHH 5 PHHC

6. Therefore, this Court deems it app The it appropriate to reassess the income ncome of the deceased min ed minor on the basis of minimum wa um wages. Since the accident occurred curred in District Hisar o isar on 21.05.2020, the minimum w um wages applicable in the State State of Haryana as on th s on the said date are required to be a o be adopted. The minimum wages for a skilled worker at rker at the relevant time were ₹8798/ /- per month. Accordingly, the ann he annual income of the d the deceased is assessed at ₹1,05,57 ,05,576/-. After deducting 50% towa towards personal and liv nd living expenses, the annual con al contribution to the family comes comes to ₹52,788/-. Furth Further, adding 40% towards futu s future prospects, the annual loss l loss of dependency as m y as mandated by law laid down b own by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in National Insura surance Company Limited v. Pran Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 680 and Smt. Sarla Verm erma v. Delhi Transport Corporati oration 2009 (6) SCC 121, it works works out to ₹73,903/-. A . Applying the multiplier of 18 of 18, keeping in view the afores aforesaid judgments, the t , the total loss of dependency is ass is assessed at ₹13,30,254/-. In addit addition thereto, the clai e claimant is entitled to ₹18,150/- - towards loss of estate, ₹18,15 150/- towards funeral neral expenses and ₹48,400/- towards owards filial consortium (with escalat escalation @10% every thre ry three years as per the law laid dow d down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour Court in Pranay Sethi’s i’s case (supra)). Consequently, the ly, the total compensation payable in ble in the case of death of ath of minor Mukesh Kumar is reas is reassessed at ₹14,14,954/-, as aga s against ₹3,00,000/- awar awarded by the learned Tribunal.

7. In so far as the claim of compens mpensation qua Sharawan Kumar, ag ar, aged about 37 years, i ears, is concerned, he was working as ing as a Mason and therefore, this Co this Court deems it appropr ppropriate to take the income of the d f the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per mon er month, which results in a lts in an annual income of ₹1,80,000/ ,000/-, out of which, after deducting o cting one- FAO-2166-2023 23 (O&M) -5-(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) fourth towards p ards personal expenses, the annual de dependency comes to ₹1,35,000/ ,000/. On adding 40% tow towards future prospects, the annua annual loss of dependency works ou rks out to ₹1,89,000/-. Ho . However, the learned Tribunal bunal failed to apply the appropri propriate multiplier and g and granted inadequate compensatio ensation under the conventional hea al heads, particularly filial y filial consortium as per the law. Ap w. Applying the correct multiplier of ier of 16, the loss of depen dependency is assessed at ₹30,24,000/ 4,000/-. In addition thereto, the claima claimants are entitled to d to ₹18,150/- each towards loss of oss of estate and funeral expenses nses and ₹1,93,600/- (48,4 (48,400x4) towards filial consortium ortium payable to the parents (escalat escalation @10% every thre ry three years as per the law laid dow d down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour Court in Pranay Sethi’s hi’s case (supra)). Consequently, t ntly, the total compensation payable ayable is reassessed at ₹32 ₹32,53,900/- as against ₹23,42,400 2,400/- awarded by the learned Tribun Tribunal. The impugned aw ned award, therefore, warrants interfer nterference to the aforesaid extent.

8. The enhanced compensation, i.e. o The , i.e. over and above the compensat pensation awarded by the l y the learned Tribunal, shall also carry o carry interest @ 7.5% per annum the date of filing filing of the claim petition till its rea its realization, payable by the respond espondent No.3 to the appel atios. appellants-claimants in equal ratios.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and c In v and circumstances, the award passed passed by the learned Trib d Tribunal is modified and the prese present appeal is allowed to the abo the above extent.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall Pend , shall also stand disposed of. February 05, 20 Pankaj* 05, 2026 (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable g/reasoned : : Yes/No Yes/No