Compensation under conventional heads must align with Supreme Court precedents.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-10460-CII-2024

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-2781-2024

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 03.11.2023 on account of death of Gulab Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14.01.2019.

3. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

JITENDER KUMAR

2025.10.14 10:18

4. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly income ₹12,000/-

2 Future prospects - 25% [₹12,000 + 3,000] = ₹15,000/-

3 Annual income [₹15,000 x 12] = ₹1,80,000/-

4 Deduction – 1/4^th [₹1,80,000 - ₹45,000] = ₹1,35,000/

Total Compensation ₹21,87,000/

Interest 9% per annum

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that he does not challenge the income, deduction, multiplier and future prospects as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance JITENDER KUMAR

2025.10.14 10:18 Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, deduction, multiplier and future prospects as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. However, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

4 Future Prospects - 25% ₹1,35,000/- [₹1,08,000 + ₹27,000]

5 Multiplier - 14 ₹18,90,000/- [₹1,35,000 x 14]

6 Loss of estate ₹18,000/- 7 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-

8 Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 3] ₹1,44,000/-

(ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 2] ₹96,000/- (iii) Spousal ₹48,000/-

(Total ₹2,88,000/-)

Total Compensation ₹22,14,000/

8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petit