SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
Vijay Kumar And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Yusuf Ali And Ors. – Respondents
FAO-1894 of 2017 
Decided On : 20-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advocate

The court held that a homemaker's contributions merit substantial recognition in compensation assessments, adjusting the notional income to Rs.15,000 with enhanced compensation totaling Rs.21,38,350.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Enhancement of compensation - Appeal against award of Rs.9,22,628/- for death in motor vehicular accident - No evidence of income provided; court recognized contributions of a homemaker - Adjusted notional income to Rs.15,000/- per month with a future prospect addition of 25% - Enhanced total compensation to Rs.21,38,350/- with interest at 9% from claim petition date. (Paras 1, 15, 18, 19)

(B) Compensation Assessment - The court applies principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi for calculating the compensation regarding personal living expenses and future prospects. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

(C) Loss of Consortium - The court set compensation for loss of consortium recognizing spousal and parental loss succinctly referring to modern definitions pertaining to consortium. (Paras 21, 22).

Facts of the case:
The deceased was a homemaker and agriculturist aged 48, who died in an accident on 24.02.2015. The initial compensation was deemed insufficient.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the implicit value of a homemaker's contribution and iterated a more appropriate quantum for the various heads of compensation.

Issues: Whether the compensation awarded was adequate and in accordance with the legal principles related to personal living expenses, multipliers, and loss of consortium.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that notional income of homemakers must account for their indispensable roles, thus reassessing the compensation based on contemporary standards rather than previous precedents.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 29.02.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.9,22,628/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of deceased Salochana in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 24.02.2015.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

4. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants be enhanced, as per latest law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

* * * * *

*

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charl


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top