IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 TEJ SINGH .... Appellant VERSUS BADAN SINGH AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.11.2019.

2. Notice of motion to respondent No.3-Insurance Company only, who is the only contesting respondent as the liability is joint and several.

3. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter may be finally heard and disposed off today itself as the only challenge in the present case is to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In view thereof, the matter is taken up today itself for disposal.

5. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

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

7. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that though the claimant-appellant does not challenge the income as assessed, the deduction made towards personal expenses, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses are on the lower side and that the claimant-appellant and proforma respondent No.4 being the father and the sister of the deceased were entitled to amount under the head filial consortium. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant 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]

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-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.

9. Heard.

10. Admittedly, there is no appeal filed by respondent No.3- Insurance Company. In the present case, since there is no challenge to the income as assessed, the deduction made towards personal expenses, the addition made towards future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side and no amount has been awarded under the head loss of consortium deserve to be accepted. 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), the claimant- appellant would be entitled to ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The claimant-appellant and proforma respondent No.4, being the father and the sister of the deceased, would also be entitled to ₹48,000 each (₹40,000 +

20% increase) towards filial consortium.

11. Accordingly, the reworked compensation to which the claimant-

appellants are entitled to is as under :

12. 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 petition till the realization of the entire amount. The amount shall be apportioned betw