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

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Trilok Chand – Appellant
Versus
Narinder Kumar – Respondent
FAO (MV) No. 135 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Tamanna Sharma
For the Respondents: Soma Thakur, Devyani Sharma

In computing just compensation for a motor vehicle accident, courts must calculate income with future prospects, apply a multiplier based on the deceased's age, and award conventional damages according to standardized rates established by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Determination of 'just compensation' in motor accident claims - Appellate court's power to enhance compensation based on established income and multiplier - Income of self-employed deceased - Addition of 40% for future prospects for person below 40 years of age - Application of multiplier based on age of deceased - Entitlement to loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium as per fixed amounts subject to periodic enhancements - Interest rate on awarded compensation. (Paras 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39)

Facts of the case:
Claimants appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, which granted compensation for the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants contested the income assessment, the failure to account for future prospects, and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
Evidence confirmed the deceased's monthly income was Rs.9000/-. Applying the principles from settled case law, the court included a 40% increase for future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18. Compensation for conventional heads was revised according to statutory guidelines with periodic enhancements.

Issues: The primary issues were determining the correct monthly income of the deceased, the applicability of future prospects, the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age, and the calculation of conventional heads of damages.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation must be fair and equitable. The court held that established income for self-employed individuals must factor in future prospects and the correct multiplier is determined by the deceased's age, not that of the claimants. Conventional heads are fixed amounts subject to tiered enhancements.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,03,800/- with 7.5% interest.

Table of Content
1. appellate courts review whether awards provide just compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
2. determination of income and age for compensation calculation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. applying mandates for future prospects, multipliers, and conventional heads. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. final modification and enhancement of compensation award. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

The appellants, being dis-satisfied with the award dated 2.1.2017, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C.P. No. 6 of 2015, titled as, ‘Tarlok Chand versus Narinder Kumar & ors.’, have preferred the present appeal.

2. By way of award dated 2.1.2017, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,58,400/-, as compensation, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. The ultimate liability has been fastened upon respondent No. 3, insurer of truck No. PB-03R-9439.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

4.1 According to the claimants, deceased Ajay Kumar, at the time of accident, was 20 years of age and was earning Rs. 9000/- per month, as he was running a street vending cart at Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by the claimants that on 24.10.2014, their son deceased Ajay Kumar, alongwith one Manpreet Singh, was returning back on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-12T-1991, after re-fueling the same at Laddowal Petrol Pump. When, he was moving towards his street vending cart, then, at about 10:30 p.m., the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Consequently, Ajay Kumar and Manpreet Singh sustained injuries. Ajay Kumar was taken to L.M. Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared to be brought dead. His post-mortem examination was conducted and information was given to Police of Police Station, Laddowal, District Ludhiana and FIR No. 181 of 2014, dated 25.10.2014, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, with Police Station, Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Pb. The accident in question has solely been attributed to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1.

4.3 The claimants have pleaded about their bright past and bleak future and sought compensation, as claimed in the petition.

5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing reply(ies).

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed joint reply, in which, they have taken preliminary objections by pleading that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the driver, owner and the insurer of Motorcycle No. HP-12T-1991 have not been impleaded as parties in the petition, and the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself.

7. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, factum of accident has not been disputed, but the same has been attributed to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

8. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections, qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable. According to the Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident. As such, the vehicle is stated to be driven, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

9. On merits, the contents of the claim

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