IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO No.3056 of 2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: January 12^th, 2026

Annu Bala and others

...Appellants

Versus

Darshan Kumar Chaudhary and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Gulshan Nandwani, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate

for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Widow, minor children and mother of deceased Parveen Kumar have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. Six claimants which include the present appellants and proforma respondents No.4 and 5 had filed the claim petition on account of death of Parveen Kumar which had taken place in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 02.03.2017. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal vide award

₹

dated 18.10.2018 had awarded an amount of 17,83,600/- as compensation along with interest to the claimants. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants and respondents No.4 and 5 are entitled to enhancement of the said compensation or not as the other aspects have not been disputed before this

Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the sole ground on which the additional compensation is to be paid to the appellants is on account of loss of consortium. It is submitted that there were six claimants in the claim petition, and thus, they were entitled to a total amount ₹

of 2,88,000/- (48000 X 6) on account of loss of consortium but the ₹

Tribunal had awarded only an amount of 40,000/- on the said account. It is submitted that thus the appellants are entitled to an additional compensation ₹

of 2,48,000/-. It is submitted that the said amount be awarded to the appellants along with 9% per annum interest. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the claim petition was filed by six claimants but the present appeal has been filed only by four appellants and not by the other two claimants. It is submitted that even in case consortium is to be granted, then the same should also cover the claims of respondents No.4 and 5 and in case, in future, respondents No.4 and 5 raise any claim, then respondent No.3 should not be held liable any further and the present appellants should satisfy the claim of respondents No.4 and 5. It is further submitted that the rate of interest claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and the highest rate of interest that should be granted is 6% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants in rebuttal has fairly submitted that the said amount would be full and final settlement with respect to the appellants as well as respondents No.4 and 5 and in case respondents No.4 and 5 raise any future claim, then the present appellants would satisfy the said claim.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

6. It is not in dispute that six claimants had filed the claim petition. As per settled law, each of the claimants, more so, when they are dependent ₹

upon the deceased, are entitled to an amount of 48,000/- on account of loss ₹

of consortium. Thus, all the six claimants were entitled to 2,88,000/-

₹

(48000 X 6) on account of consortium, whereas only an amount of 40,000/- had been awarded by the Tribunal on the said account. The said six ₹

claimants are thus entitled to an additional compensation of 2,48,000/-. The present appeal has been filed only by four appellants, however, the ₹

additional compensation of 2,48,000/- is for the benefit of the four appellants as well as the proforma respondents No.4 and 5 as has been undertak