Shakuntala (deceased) through LRs v. Kuldeep & Ors
Case Details
255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3079-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.11.2025 Shakuntala (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant(s) Versus Kuldeep & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 09.01.2017 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 11.06.2015. 2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity. 3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 2 3 4 Monthly Income Annual Income Deduction - 50% - 18 Multiplier ₹9,000/- ₹1,08,000/- ₹54,000/- ₹9,72,000/- [₹9,000 x 12] [₹1,08,000 - ₹54,000] [₹54,000 x 18] YOGESH SHARMA 2025.11.07 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh FAO-3079-2017 (O&M) 2 5 6 Funeral expenses Loss of love and affection Total Compensation Interest ₹25,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹10,97,000/- 9% 4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the income, deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He states that the Tribunal has though calculated an amount of ₹4,86,000/- towards the future prospects @ 50%, however, the disbursal thereof was kept pending subject to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding future prospects. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the law as regards future prospects is now well settled and the amount calculated towards future prospects is required to be disbursed to the claimants. 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 also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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]. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has 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 2025.11.07 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh FAO-3079-2017 (O&M) 3 6. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. 8. Vide the impugned award, though the Tribunal has calculated the compensation towards future prospects as ₹4,86,000/- while assessing the same @ 50%, however, disbursal thereof was kept pending subject to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding future prospects. Admittedly, the deceased was 23 years old at the time of the accident and was admittedly not a permanent/salaried class employee. The Tribunal has assessed his fixed salary as that of a casual labourer and thus in view of the settled law in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% towards future prospects would be applicable in the present case. 9. 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 (parents 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. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 2 Monthly Income Annual Income ₹9,000/- ₹1,08,000/- [₹9,000 x 12] YOGESH SHARMA 2025.11.07 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh FAO-3079-2017 (O&M) 4 [₹1,08,000 - ₹54,000] [₹54,000 + ₹21,600] [₹75,600 x 18] 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 18 ₹54,000/- Deduction - 50% Future Prospects - 40% ₹75,600/- Multiplier Loss of estate Funeral expenses Loss of consortium (i) Filial [₹48,000/- x 2] ₹13,60,800/- ₹18,000/- ₹18,000/- ₹96,000/- ₹14,92,800/- Total Compensation 10. 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. 11. 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) alongwith 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 alongwith up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Pending
Decision
applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 06.11.2025 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2025.11.07 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh