Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 2092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
Charanjit Kaur And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Kuldeep Singh And Others - Respondents
FAO-5286-2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocate, for Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep Kumar Rawal, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Nikunj Dhawan, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate

In the absence of documentary evidence, the court may determine a deceased's income through reasonable guesswork guided by minimum wage notifications. Furthermore, compensation for conventional heads like loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate is mandatory and must be calculated according to established judicial precedents.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Death in motor accident - Quantum of compensation - Assessment of income in absence of documentary evidence - Court may adopt minimum wage notification as a guiding factor but must also apply reasonable guesswork based on facts and circumstances of each case - Future prospects for self-employed or fixed salary individuals below age of 40 years to be added at 40% - Deduction for personal and living expenses for a bachelor should be 50% - Conventional heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium must be awarded and periodically enhanced - Interest on enhanced compensation should be awarded at 9% per annum from date of filing claim petition. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Duty of appellate court to ensure just and reasonable compensation - Interference warranted where tribunal fails to award compensation under recognized heads or assesses amounts on lower side. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal following the death of a young individual in a motor vehicular accident. The tribunal had awarded a specific sum, but the appellants contended that the amount was insufficient, particularly regarding the assessment of income and the failure to award compensation under conventional heads.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the deceased's income should be assessed at a higher reasonable figure based on the nature of employment and age. It further held that the tribunal erred by omitting compensation for loss of consortium and under-valuing funeral expenses and loss of estate.

Issues: The primary issues were the appropriate assessment of the deceased's monthly income in the absence of documentary evidence and the correct application of conventional heads of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of documentary evidence, income should be determined through reasonable guesswork guided by minimum wage notifications. Furthermore, it emphasized that compensation for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate is mandatory and must be calculated according to established judicial precedents to ensure just compensation.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal scope regarding motor accident compensation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. conflicting claims over the adequacy of tribunal-awarded compensation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. assessment of income and fair compensation adjustments in motor accident claims. (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. standardization of compensation heads via established supreme court precedents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. final calculation of enhanced compensation and disbursement directives. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.14,76,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, on account of death of Gursawak Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 12.06.2022.

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 here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the appeal.

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

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. 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 wido