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

2015 Supreme(P&H) 2334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. -  Appellant
Versus 
Urmila Rawat And Ors. -  Respondents
FAO-3784-2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Banni Thomas, Advocate, Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Advocate

Appellate courts possess the authority to enhance compensation in motor accident claims to ensure just and fair awards, even in the absence of cross-appeals by claimants, by exercising powers to re-appreciate evidence and rectify errors in the tribunal's original assessment under beneficial social welfare legislation.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163-A, 166, 168 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 33 - Section 107 - Motor accident claim - Quantum of compensation - Appellate court's power to enhance compensation - In an appeal filed by the insurer, the appellate court is empowered to re-appreciate evidence and award just and fair compensation even in the absence of cross-objections or cross-appeals by the claimants - The court is duty-bound to ensure just compensation in beneficial legislation cases, unrestrained by procedural technicalities. (Paras 13, 17, 29)

(B) Compensation - Assessment - Future prospects - Deduction for personal expenses - In cases of death, addition for future prospects is mandatory based on age and employment status - Deduction for personal and living expenses must be applied according to established judicial precedents - Conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses must be quantified as per settled law. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The insurer challenged the compensation awarded by the tribunal, arguing it was excessive and failed to apply correct deductions for personal expenses. The claimants did not file a cross-appeal. The appellate court reviewed the computation, noting the tribunal's failure to include future prospects and specific conventional heads.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal erred in its calculation of the multiplier, deduction for personal expenses, and failure to award future prospects and conventional heads. It re-calculated the compensation to ensure it was just and fair.

Issues: Whether the appellate court can enhance compensation in an appeal filed by the insurer without cross-objections from the claimants, and whether the tribunal's assessment of compensation was legally sound.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court, acting under its powers to do complete justice, is not restricted by procedural technicalities when dealing with beneficial legislation. It must ensure just compensation by re-evaluating evidence and applying settled principles regarding future prospects, personal expense deductions, and conventional heads.

Result: Appeal dismissed; compensation enhanced.

Table of Content
1. scope of appeal restricted to quantum of compensation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. rival contentions regarding calculation of compensation and personal deductions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. application of established precedent standards for motor accident compensation assessment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. assessment of tribunal findings against statutory schedules and legal precedents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. recalculation of total compensation including future prospects and conventional heads. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. appellate authority's power to enhance compensation absent cross-objections. (Para 17)
7. granting interest on enhanced compensation from claim petition filing date. (Para 18)
8. final order for deposit and disbursement of compensation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 15.01.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant/insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.7,05,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

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. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on the higher side. He further contends that appellant–insurance company contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in not deducting one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses, in accordance with the Second Schedule, therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2, 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 appellant/claimant. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

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

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top