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)(P&H) 83438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudeepti Sharma, J
Aman Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar – Respondent
FAO-4892-2015



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghav Sharma
For the Respondents: Parminder Singh, Shubham Gupta, Raj Kumar Bashamboo

In motor accident claim cases, the age of the deceased as per the post-mortem report is the scientifically preferred basis for determination, and compensation must be correctly calculated by incorporating future prospects, appropriate multipliers, and standardized deductions for personal expenses while awarding interest at 9%.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Death in motor accident - Quantum of compensation - Age determination - Post mortem report is a scientific assessment and should be accepted in absence of contrary material - Multiplier of 16 is appropriate for age 35 - Future prospects added at 40% - Deduction towards personal expenditure to be 1/4th - Enhanced compensation awarded with 9% interest. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15)

(B) Consortium - As per settled law, loss of consortium includes spousal and parental consortium - Compensation awarded for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium heads. (Paras 8, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the award of the MACT seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of Babli Devi (age 35), arguing that the Tribunal failed to correctly determine her age and omitted future prospects in the calculation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in its age assessment by using guess work instead of the Post Mortem report, and failed to account for future prospects and standard deductions. Consequently, the total compensation was re-calculated and enhanced to Rs.11,98,000/-, providing an additional Rs.1,98,000/- to the claimants.

Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased was sufficient and whether the age and calculation factors were correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi: Age should be determined based on scientific evidence like Post Mortem reports. Furthermore, compensation must be calculated including future prospects, appropriate multipliers according to the age group, and standardized deductions for personal expenses, consistent with Supreme Court precedents.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

Table of Content
1. overview of claim petition and appellate purpose. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argument regarding quantum of compensation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. reference to settled law on compensation, multiplier, and future prospects. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
4. court findings on erroneous age, multiplier, and deduction calculations. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. final calculation of enhanced compensation and directions for payment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra 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.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Babli Devi in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 04.12.2012.

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. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the age of the deceased as 37 years, however, the same is to be determined as per the post mortem report (Ex.P-2) and further multiplier is to be modified accordingly. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of 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. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

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 mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be trea

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