CHARANJIT KAUR & Ors. v. JASBIR SINGH & Ors.

Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. **** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

#1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants, who are wife and son of deceased Gurvinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident, which took place on

18.07.1999, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver, while driving Tata 407 bearing registration No. PB-06-3000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’), being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 19.07.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

#2. Since, in the present appeal, the only issue raised by the appellants- FAO-3740-2001 -2- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and the appeal bearing FAO No. 3307 of 2001 preferred by the respondent-Insurance Company has already been allowed vide judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court, whereby recovery rights have been granted to the Insurance Company, and the finding of the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has not been disturbed, the detailed facts and manner of the accident are not being recorded herein for the sake of brevity.

#3. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation to the appellants -claimants: Income Rs. 3,000/- Deduction Multiplier Loss of dependency Total compensation awarded 1/3rd (Rs.3,000/- - Rs. 1,000/- = Rs.2,000/- 12 Rs. 2,88,000/- (R. 2,000 x 12 x 12) Rs. 2,88,000/-

#4. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the following grounds: (i) That the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased and has failed to take into consideration the income as pleaded and proved by the claimants; (ii) That no addition towards future prospects has been made while determining the loss of dependency; (iii) That the appropriate multiplier has not been applied; (iv) That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses FAO-3740-2001 -3- of the deceased has been excessive; and (v) That the appellants are entitled to appropriate compensation under the conventional heads, namely, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal, parental, and filial consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

#5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by working as a bus conductor with a private transport company. However, except for the oral assertions made in this regard, no documentary or other cogent evidence was produced on record by the appellants-claimants to prove either the pleaded income or the vocation of the deceased. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month considering him as casual worker/daily wage.

#6. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants fairly conceded that he is unable to justify any enhancement in the income assessed by the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise, on perusal of the evidence available on record, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 3,000/-.

#7. In the present case, the age of the deceased as well as the number of dependents is not in dispute. Admittedly deceased was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and is survived by four dependents, namely, his wife, parents, and one minor son. Therefore, while calculating the loss of dependency, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made. Keeping in view the age of deceased, multiplier of '18' would be applicable. Since deceased FAO-3740-2001 -4- is survived by four dependents, deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is required to be made for determining loss of dependency. Appellants-claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head loss of spousal, filial and parental consortium. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate It is, however, made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants-claimants, appellants-claimants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

#8. Accordingly, the re-worked compensation is as under: Income Future prospects towards spousal Deduction personal expenses Multiplier Total dependency Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Loss consortium claimant No. 1_ __ Loss of parental consortium claimant No. 2. Loss consortium proforma respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Total compensation awarded by Tribunal Total compensation filial 3,000/- 3,000/- Rs. Rs. 4,200/- Rs. 40% (3,000 + 1,200) 1/4th (4,200 - 1050) 18 Rs. 3,150 × 12 × 18 Rs. 6,80,400/- Rs. 3,150/- 18 Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- × 2 Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 2,88,000/- Rs. 8,70,000/- FAO-3740-2001 -5- awarded in appeal Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 5,82,000/- Rs. 8,70,000/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs. 2,88,000/- (awarded by Tribunal)

#9. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate. Under conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

#11. Appeal is allowed in above terms. The liability to satisfy the enhanced award of compensation shall be in accordance with the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court in FAO No. 3307 of 2001, and shall be governed by the directions contained therein.

#12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

16.07.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No