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) 2337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
Subdin And Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
M/s Varuna Road & Ors. - Respondent
FAO-906-2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate and Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate Mr. Aalok Verma, Advocate Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate

In motor accident claims involving minors, the deceased cannot be treated as a non-earner. Compensation must be calculated using the minimum wage of a skilled worker, applying the appropriate multiplier, adding future prospects, and making standard deductions to ensure the award is just and reasonable.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Death of minor - Quantum of compensation - Determination of notional income - Minor child cannot be treated as non-earner - Minimum wages of skilled worker to be adopted - Multiplier of 18 applicable for age group 15-20 - Future prospects at 40% to be added - Personal expenditure deduction of 1/2 for unmarried deceased - Conventional heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and filial consortium to be awarded. (Paras 9-17)

(B) Appellate jurisdiction - Duty of court to ensure just compensation - Compensation must be reasonable and consistent with settled legal principles - Failure of tribunal to apply correct multiplier and income assessment warrants interference. (Paras 14-18)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed for the enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal for the death of a minor in a motor vehicle accident. The tribunal had assessed the income on the lower side, applied an incorrect multiplier, and failed to account for future prospects and personal expenditure deductions.

Findings of Court:
The court recalculated the compensation by adopting the minimum wage for a skilled worker, applying the correct multiplier of 18, adding 40% for future prospects, and deducting 50% for personal expenses. Conventional heads were also adjusted to reflect current legal standards.

Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal was just and whether the income assessment, multiplier, and deductions were in accordance with settled legal principles.

Ratio Decidendi: A minor child cannot be categorized as a non-earner; therefore, minimum wages for a skilled worker must be used to determine income. Future prospects and appropriate multipliers must be applied to ensure just compensation under beneficial legislation.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal scope regarding quantum of compensation for an accidental death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of opposing contentions regarding the sufficiency of the tribunal's compensation award. (Para 3 , 4)
3. established supreme court guidelines on compensation, future prospects, multiplier application, and consortium definitions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. principle that minors must be assigned notional skilled worker income rather than non-earner status. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. correcting lower court errors regarding multiplier, future prospects, personal expenditure deductions, and conventional heads. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. formal articulation of the finalized enhanced compensation award, interest rates, and disbursement directives. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat 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 to the tune of Rs.2,85,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, on account of death of Rohit @ Kallu in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 16.06.2013.

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

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