Anupama Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Umesh Chander & Anr.

Mr. J.S. Khiva, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 06.08.2009 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 19.02.2006.

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 2 3 Monthly Income Deduction - 1/3rd Annual Income ₹6,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹48,000/- [₹6,000 - ₹2,000] [₹4,000 x 12] YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh FAO-2796-2010 (O&M) 4 5 6 ₹8,16,000/- Multiplier - 17 ₹20,000/- Funeral expenses Loss of love and affection ₹20,000/- Total Compensation Interest ₹8,56,000/- 7.5% 2 [₹48,000 x 17]

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the income and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that in the present case there are five claimants being widow, three children and mother of the deceased and, hence, a deduction of 1/4th ought to have been applied instead of 1/3rd. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40% inasmuch as the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement. YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh FAO-2796-2010 (O&M) 3

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company or by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant- appellants to the income and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.

In the present case, the number of claimants is five being widow, three children and mother of the deceased, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/4th would be applicable instead of 1/3rd. The Tribunal has also not made any addition towards future prospects. The deceased was admittedly 30 years of age, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% addition is made towards future prospects. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimants (widow, three children and mother of the deceased) would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under : Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Heads Monthly Income Annual Income Deduction - 1/4th Future Prospects - 40% Multiplier - 17 Compensation Awarded ₹6,000/- ₹72,000/- ₹54,000/- ₹75,600/- ₹12,85,200/- [₹75,600 x 17] [₹6,000 x 12] [₹72,000 - ₹18,000] [₹54,000 + ₹21,600] YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh FAO-2796-2010 (O&M) 4 6 7 8 ₹18,000/- ₹18,000/- Loss of estate Funeral expenses Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 3] ₹1,44,000/- (ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 1] (iii) Spousal Total Compensation ₹48,000/- ₹48,000/- (Total ₹2,40,000/-) ₹15,61,200/-

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

In view of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the direction of the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s) along with the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter along with up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.