Anju Devi and Others v. Geeta Ram and Others

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH Reservedoon:-o11.12.2025 Pronouncedoon:-o18.12.2025 UploadedoOn:o19.12.2025 AnjuoDevioandoothers o o......Appellants vs. GeetaoRamoandoothers ooooo oooooo ......Respondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoSUDEEPTIoSHARMA Present: Mr.oArunoKumaroGupta,oAdvocateo forotheoappellants. Mr.oRadheoShyamoSharma,oAdvocate fororespondentoNo.3-InsuranceoCompany. **** oSUDEEPTIoSHARMAooJo.

¶1Theopresentoappealohasobeenopreferredoagainstotheoawardodated

04.02.2025opassedobyotheolearnedoMotoroAccidentoClaimsoTribunal,oPanchkulaoin theoclaimopetitionofiledounderoSectiono166oofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988o(for short,o'theoTribunal')oforoenhancementoofocompensationograntedotootheoclaimantsoto theotuneoofoRs.19,96,572/-oalongwithointeresto@6%operoannumoonoaccountoofodeath ofoSureshoRamoinoaoMotoroVehicularoAccident,ooccurredoono20.03.2024.

¶2Asosoleoissueoforodeterminationoinotheopresentoappealoisoconfinedoto quantumoofocompensationoawardedobyotheolearnedoTribunal,oaodetailedonarrationoof theofactsoofotheocaseoisonotorequiredotoobeoreproducedohereoforotheosakeoofobrevity.o SUBMISSIONSoOFoLEARNEDoCOUNSELoFORoTHEoPARTIES

¶3o Theolearnedocounseloforotheoclaimants-appellantsocontendsothatothe amountoassessedobyotheolearnedoTribunaloisoonotheolowerosideoandodeservesotoobe enhanced.oTherefore,oheopraysothatotheopresentoappealobeoallowedoandoamountoof compensationobeoenhancedoasoperolatestolaw.

¶4Perocontra,olearnedocounselofororespondentoNo.3-InsuranceoCompany, however,ovehementlyoarguesothatotheocompensationoawardedoisoonohigheroside. Therefore,oheopraysoforodismissaloofotheopresentoappeal.

5.o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedotheowhole recordoofothisocaseowithotheiroableoassistance. SETTLEDoLAWoONoCOMPENSATION

¶6Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof oSarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009)o6oSupremeoCourtoCaseso121],olaid downotheolawoonoassessmentoofocompensationoandotheorelevantoparasoofotheosame areoasounder:- "30.oThoughoinosomeocasesotheodeductionotoobeomadeotowards personaloandolivingoexpensesoisocalculatedoonotheobasisoofounits indicated o in o Trilok o Chandra, o the o general o practice o is o to o apply standardisedodeductions.oHavingoaoconsideredoseveralosubsequent decisionsoofothisoCourt,oweoareoofotheoviewothatowhereotheodeceased wasomarried,otheodeductionotowardsopersonaloandolivingoexpensesoof theodeceased,oshouldobeoone-thirdo(1/3rd)owhereotheonumberoof dependentofamilyomembersoiso2otoo3,oone-fourtho(1/4th)owhereothe numberoofodependentofamilyomembersoiso4otoo6,oandoone-fiftho(1/5th) whereotheonumberoofodependentofamilyomembersoexceedsosix.

31.oWhereotheodeceasedowasoaobacheloroandotheoclaimantsoareothe parents,otheodeductionofollowsoaodifferentoprinciple.oInoregardoto bachelors, o normally, o 50% o is o deducted o as o personal o and o living 2025.12.19 10:11 expenses,obecauseoitoisoassumedothatoaobachelorowouldotendotoospend moreoonohimself.oEvenootherwise,othereoisoalsootheopossibilityoofohis gettingomarriedoinoaoshortotime,oinowhichoeventotheocontributionotoothe parent(s)oandosiblingsoisolikelyotoobeocutodrastically.oFurther,osubject tooevidenceotootheocontrary,otheofatheroisolikelyotoohaveohisoownoincome andowillonotobeoconsideredoasoaodependantoandotheomotheroaloneowill beoconsideredoasoaodependant.oInotheoabsenceoofoevidenceotoothe contrary,obrothersoandosistersowillonotobeoconsideredoasodependants, becauseotheyowilloeitherobeoindependentoandoearning,ooromarried,oor beodependentoonotheofather.

32.oThusoevenoifotheodeceasedoisosurvivedobyoparentsoandosiblings,oonly dotheomotherowouldobeoconsideredotoobeoaodependant,oando50%owould beotreatedoasotheopersonaloandolivingoexpensesoofotheobacheloroand 50%oasotheocontributionotootheofamily.oHowever,owhereotheofamilyoof theobacheloroisolargeoandodependentoonotheoincomeoofotheodeceased,oas inoaocaseowhereoheohasoaowidowedomotheroandolargeonumberoof youngeronon-earningosistersoorobrothers,ohisopersonaloandoliving expensesomayobeorestrictedotooone-thirdoandocontributionotootheofamily willobeotakenoasotwo-third. * * * * * *

42.o Weothereforeoholdothatotheomultiplierotoobeousedoshouldobeoas mentionedoinoColumno(4)oofotheotableoaboveo(preparedobyoapplying SusammaoThomas?,oTrilokoChandraoandoCharlie),owhichostartsowith anooperativeomultiplieroofo18o(forotheoageogroupsoofo15otoo20oando21oto 25oyears),oreducedobyooneounitoforoeveryofiveoyears,othatoisoM-17ofor 26otoo30oyears,oM-16oforo31otoo35oyears,oM-15oforo36otoo40oyears,oM-2025.12.19 10:11 14oforo41otoo45oyears,oandoM-13oforo46otoo50oyears,othenoreducedoby twoounitsoforoeveryofiveoyears,othatois,oM-11oforo51otoo55oyears,oM-9 foro56otoo60oyears,oM-7oforo61otoo65oyearsoandoM-5oforo66otoo70oyears.

¶7Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofooNational Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017)o16oSCCo680]ohasoclarifiedotheolawounder Sectionso166,o163-Aoando168oofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988,oonotheofollowing aspects:-

(A) Deduction o of o personal o and o living o expenses o to o determine multiplicand;

(B) Selectionoofomultiplierodependingoonoageoofodeceased;

(C) Ageoofodeceasedoonobasisoforoapplyingomultiplier;

(D) Reasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,olossoof estate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloexpenses,owithoescalation;

(E) Futureoprospectsoforoallocategoriesoofopersonsoandoforodifferent ages:owithopermanentojob;oself-employedoorofixedosalary.o Theorelevantoportionoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedoasounder:- "52.o Asofaroasotheoconventional headsoareoconcerned,oweofind itodifficultotooagreeowithotheoviewoexpressedoinoRajesh?.oItohas granted o Rs.25,000 o towards o funeral o expenses, o Rs o 1,00,000 towardsolossoofoconsortiumoandoRso1,00,000otowardsolossoof careoandoguidanceoforominorochildren.oTheoheadorelatingotooloss ofocareoandominorochildrenodoesonotoexist.oThoughoRajesh refersotooSantoshoDevi,oitodoesonotoseemotoofollowotheosame.oThe conventionaloandotraditionaloheads,oneedlessotoosay,ocannotobe determinedoonopercentageobasisobecauseothatowouldonotobeoan acceptableocriterion.oUnlikeodeterminationoofoincome,otheosaid 2025.12.19 10:11 headsohaveotoobeoquantified.oAnyoquantificationomustohaveoa reasonableofoundation.oThereocanobeonoodisputeooverotheofact thatopriceoindex,ofalloinobankointerest,oescalationooforatesoin manyoaofieldohaveotoobeonoticed.oTheocourtocannotoremain obliviousotootheosame.oThereohasobeenoaothumboruleoinothis aspect. o Otherwise, o there o will o be o extreme o difficulty o in determinationoofotheosameoandounlessotheothumboruleoisoapplied, thereowillobeoimmenseovariationolackingoanyokindoofoconsistency asoaoconsequenceoofowhich,otheoordersopassedobyotheotribunals andocourtsoareolikelyotoobeounguided.oTherefore,oweothinkoit seemlyotoofixoreasonableosums.oItoseemsotoousothatoreasonable figuresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,olossoofoestate,olossoof consortium o and o funeral o expenses o should o be o Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 o and o Rs.15,000 o respectively. o o The o principle o of revisitingotheosaidoheadsoisoanoacceptableoprinciple.oButothe revisitoshouldonotobeofact-centricooroquantum-centric.ooWeothink thatoitowouldobeocondignothatotheo amountothatoweo have quantifiedoshouldobeoenhancedoonopercentageobasisoinoevery threeoyearsoandotheoenhancementoshouldobeoatotheorateoofo10% inoaospanoofothreeoyears.ooWeoareodisposedotooholdosoobecause thatowillobringoinoconsistencyoinorespectoofothoseoheads. * * * * *

59.3.oWhileodeterminingotheoincome,oanoadditionoofo50%oof actualosalaryotootheoincomeoofotheodeceasedotowardsofuture prospects,owhereotheodeceasedohadoaopermanentojoboandowas belowotheoageoofo40oyears,oshouldobeomade.oTheoaddition shouldobeo30%,oifotheoageoofotheodeceasedowasobetweeno40otoo50 years.oInocaseotheodeceasedowasobetweenotheoageoofo50otoo60 years,otheoadditionoshouldobeo15%.ooActualosalaryoshouldobe readoasoactualosalaryolessotax.

59.4.oInocaseotheodeceasedowasoself-employedo(or)oonoaofixed salary,oanoadditionoofo40%oofotheoestablishedoincomeoshouldobe theowarrantowhereotheodeceasedowasobelowotheoageoofo40oyears. Anoadditionoofo25%owhereotheodeceasedowasobetweenotheoageoof 40otoo50oyearsoando10%owhereotheodeceasedowasobetweenothe ageoofo50otoo60oyearsoshouldobeoregardedoasotheonecessary methodoofocomputation.oTheoestablishedoincomeomeansothe incomeominusotheotaxocomponent.

59.5.oForodeterminationoofotheomultiplicand,otheodeductionofor personaloandolivingoexpenses,otheotribunalsoandotheocourtsoshall beoguidedobyoparaso30otoo32oofoSarlaoVerma?owhichoweohave reproducedohereinbefore.

59.6.oTheoselectionoofomultiplieroshallobeoasoindicatedoinothe TableoinoSarlaoVerma?oreadowithoparao42oofothatojudgment.

59.7.oTheoageoofotheodeceasedoshouldobeotheobasisoforoapplying theomultiplier.

59.8.oReasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,oloss ofoestate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloexpensesoshouldobeoRs 15,000,oRso40,000oandoRso15,000orespectively.oTheoaforesaid amountsoshouldobeoenhancedoatotheorateoofo10%oinoeveryothree years."

8.o Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoMagmaoGeneraloInsurance CompanyoLimitedoVs.oNanuoRamoaliasoChuhruoRamo&oOtherso[2018(18) SCCo130]oafteroconsideringooSarlaoVermao(supra)oandoPranayoSethio(Supra)ohas settledotheolaworegardingoconsortium.ooRelevantoparasoofotheosameoareoreproduced asounder:- "21.oAoConstitutionoBenchoofothisoCourtoinoPranayoSethi?odealtowith theovariousoheadsounderowhichocompensationoisotoobeoawardedoinoa deathocase.oOneoofotheseoheadsoisolossoofoconsortium.oInolegal parlance,o"consortium"oisoaocompendiousotermowhichoencompasses "spousal o consortium", o "parental o consortium", o and o "filial consortium".oTheorightotooconsortiumowouldoincludeotheocompany, care,ohelp,ocomfort,oguidance,osolaceoandoaffectionoofotheodeceased, whichoisoaolossotoohisofamily.oWithorespectotooaospouse,oitowould includeosexualorelationsowithotheodeceasedospouse.

21.1.oSpousal consortiumoisogenerallyodefinedoasorightsopertaining tootheorelationshipoofoaohusband-wifeowhichoallowsocompensationoto theosurvivingospouseoforolossoofo"company,osociety,ocooperation, affection,oandoaidoofotheootheroinoeveryoconjugalorelation".

21.2.oParental consortiumoisograntedotootheochildouponotheopremature deathoofoaoparent,oforolossoofo"parentaloaid,oprotection,oaffection, society,odiscipline,oguidanceoandotraining".

21.3.oFilial consortiumoisotheorightoofotheoparentsotoocompensationoin theocaseoofoanoaccidentalodeathoofoaochild.oAnoaccidentoleadingotoothe deathoofoaochildocausesogreatoshockoandoagonyotootheoparentsoand familyoofotheodeceased.oTheogreatestoagonyoforoaoparentoisotoolose theirochildoduringotheirolifetime.oChildrenoareovaluedoforotheirolove, affection,ocompanionshipoandotheiroroleoinotheofamilyounit.

22.oConsortiumoisoaospecialoprismoreflectingochangingonormsoabout theostatusoandoworthoofoactualorelationships.oModernojurisdictions world-overohaveorecognisedothatotheovalueoofoaochild'soconsortium faroexceedsotheoeconomicovalueoofotheocompensationoawardedoinothe caseoofotheodeathoofoaochild.oMostojurisdictionsothereforeopermit parentsotoobeoawardedocompensationounderolossoofoconsortiumoon theodeathoofoaochild.oTheoamountoawardedotootheoparentsoisoa compensation o for o loss o of o the o love, o affection, o care o and companionshipoofotheodeceasedochild.o

23.oTheoMotoroVehiclesoActoisoaobeneficialolegislationoaimedoat providingoreliefotootheovictimsoorotheirofamilies,oinocasesoofogenuine claims.oInocaseowhereoaoparentohasolostotheirominorochild,oor unmarriedosonoorodaughter,otheoparentsoareoentitledotoobeoawarded lossoofoconsortiumounderotheoheadoofofilialoconsortium.oParental consortiumoisoawardedotoochildrenowhooloseotheiroparentsoinomotor vehicleoaccidentsounderotheoAct.oAofewoHighoCourtsohaveoawarded compensationoonothisocount.oHowever,othereowasonooclarityowith respectotootheoprinciplesoonowhichocompensationocouldobeoawarded onolossoofofilialoconsortium.

24.oTheoamountoofocompensationotoobeoawardedoasoconsortiumowill beogovernedobyotheoprinciplesoofoawardingocompensationounder "lossoofoconsortium"oasolaidodownoinoPranayoSethi?.oInotheopresent case,oweodeemoitoappropriateotooawardotheofatheroandotheosisteroof theodeceased,oanoamountoofoRso40,000oeachoforolossoofofilial consortium.

¶9AoperusaloofotheorecordoshowsothatotheodeceasedoSureshoRamowas statedotoobeo40oyearsoofoage.oSinceothisofactowasonotodisputedobyotheoinsurance company,othereforeotheotribunalohasorightlyoassessedotheoageoofotheodeceasedoSuresh Ramoaso40oyearsobyoplacingorelianceoonopost-mortemoreportoEx.P3.

¶10Aoperusaloofotheorecordoshowsothatotheodeceasedowasostatedotoobeoa cookoandowasostatedotoobeoearningoRs.25,000/-operomonth.oTheoclaimantoherself steppedointootheowitnessoboxoasoPW-2oandodeposedothatodeceasedowasoearning aroundoRs.25,000/-operomonthobyoworkingoasocook.oSheohasoalsooplacedoonofiled salaryocertificateo(MarkoP-1)oissuedobyoMr.oGursahiboSingho(Contractor),owherein itoisomentionedothatoSureshoRamo(sinceodeceased)owasoworkingoasoaocookoand 2025.12.19g 10e:1t1tingoRs.25,000/-oasosalary.oTheosameohasonotobeoprovedoonofileoasotheoperson who issued this certificate has not been examined as a witness in this case. The claimants have also examined PW-4 Venketesh, Manager of SBI, Sector-1, Panchkula to prove bank account statement Ex.P-16 of deceased Suresh Ram. =o*ever,otheolearnedo'ri(unalohasoerrin)lyoi)noredotheo(an/ostatementoofothe deceasedo*hichosho*sothatotheoamountoofoRs.-.,+++9"ohaso(eenocreditedoinothe accountoofotheodeceasedoinotheomonthoofoEcto(er,o-+-+otooApril,o-+-&,oandofrom Au)ust,o-+-&otooSeptem(er,o-+-&oandoconse<uentlyota/enotheoincomeoofothe deceasedoasoperotheominimumo*a)esoofouns/illedola(ouroprevailin)oatotheotimeoof accidentoinotheoStateoofo=aryanaoatoRs.&+,2-,.-,9"operomonth. &&. Merely because claimants were unable to produce any other documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased, same does not justify discarding the salary certificate (Mark P-1) and bank statement (Ex.P-16) which clearly shows that theodeceasedohado(eeno*or/in)oasoaocoo/oinotheopastoando*as earnin)oRs.-.,+++9"operomonth.

¶12Therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labourer i.e. Rs.10,924.24/-per month. Even though no other documentary evidence except the salary certificate (Mark P-1) and bank statement (Ex.P-16) of the deceased was produced by the claimants, still it is pertinent to note that the deceased was stated to be working in an unorganised sector, therefore, the formal documentation of earning is not always maintained, in view of this, the Ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.10,924.24/-per month. Support for this conclusion can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO-2822-2006, titled as Tripta Rani and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another, decided on 15.10.2024. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶10Though no documentary evidence was submitted by the claimants, still it is pertinent to note that the deceased was working in an unorganised sector, therefore, the formal documentation of earning is not always maintained, in view of this, the Ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. Support for this conclusion can also be drawn from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, 2021 ACJ 2554, wherein it has been held as under:- "Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing income. No reason to discard oral evidence of wife of deceased who deposed that deceased was earning around Rs.15000/- per month Deceased aged about 32 years on date of accident and…"

¶11In view of the facts and legal principles outlined hereinabove, the income of Rs.3000/- as determined by the Ld. Tribunal appears to be understated. Consequently, upon due consideration of the oral evidence on recod, it would be just and proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.8000/- per month. This assessment in my view, would better serve the ends of justice."

¶13Be that as it may, it is trite that cook falls under the category of skilled labour. In view of the above referred to judgments and facts & circumstances of the case, this court in the interest of justice is inclined to assess the notional income of the deceased as of a skilled worker i.e. Rs.12,193/- (rounding of to Rs.12,500) per month.

¶14Aofurtheroperusaloofotheoawardoshowsothatotheoamountoawardedounder theoheadsoofoLossoofoEstate,oFuneraloExpensesoandoLossoofoConsortiumoisoonothe loweroside.oTherefore,otheoawardorequiresoindulgenceoofothisoCourt. CONCLUSION

¶15InoviewoofotheolawolaidodownobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinothe aboveoreferredotoojudgments,otheopresentoappealoisoallowed.oTheoawardodated

04.02.2025 oisomodifiedoaccordingly.oTheoappellants-claimantsoareoentitledoto enhancedocompensationoasoperotheocalculationsomadeohere-under:- Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 MonthlyoIncomeoo Rs.12,500/- 2 FutureoProspect Rs.3,125/-o(12,500oXo25%) 3 Deduction o towards o personal Rs.3,907/-o(15,625oXo1/4)o expenditureo1/4 4 TotaloIncomeo Rs.11,718/-o(15,625-3,907) 5 Multipliero 15 6 AnnualoDependencyo Rs.21,09,240/-o(11,718oXo12oXo15) 7 LossoofoEstate Rs.18,150/- 8 FuneraloExpenses Rs.18,150/- 9 LossoofoConsortium Rs.2,42,000/- Parental:o48,400oxo4 Spousal:o48,400oxo1 TotaloCompensation Rs.23,87,540/- Deductiono Rs.19,96,572/- AmountoAwardedobyotheoTribunal Enhancedoamount Rs.3,90,968/-(23,87,540-19,96,572)

¶16Soofaroasotheointerestopartoisoconcerned,oasoheldobyoHon'bleoSupreme CourtoinoDara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019oACJo3176 I attest to thae nacdcuroaRcy a.nVdalli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation o(2022)o5 SupremeoCourtoCaseso107, otheoappellants-claimantsoareograntedotheointerest @o9%operoannumoonotheoenhancedoamountofromotheodateoofofilingoofoclaimopetition tillotheodateoofoitsorealization.

¶17TheoInsuranceoCompany-respondentoNo.3oisodirectedotoodepositothe enhancedoamountoofocompensationoalongowithointerestowithotheoTribunalowithinoa periodoofotwoomonthsofromotheoreceiptoofocopyoofothisojudgment.oTheoTribunalois directedotoodisburseotheoenhancedoamountoofocompensationoalongowithointerestoin theoaccountsoofotheoclaimants/appellantsoandoasoperorationosettledobyotheolearned Tribunal,ovideoitsoawardodatedo04.02.2025.oTheoclaimants/appellantsoareodirectedoto furnishotheirobankoaccountodetailsotootheoTribunal.

18.o Inoviewoofotheoorderodatedo18.07.2024opassedoinoFAOoNo.1682oof 2007,otheoInsuranceoCompanyoisodirectedotoodisburseotheocurrentoscheduledofeesoto Mr.oRadheoShyamoSharma,oAdvocate,otheocounseloengagedobyothisoCourtoinothe presentocase.

¶19Pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oalsoostandodisposedoof.

18.12.2025 ooooooooooooo ooo ooo (SUDEEPTIoSHARMA) Saahilo ooooooooo ooooo JUDGE oo Whetherospeaking/non-speakingo:oSpeaking oo oo oWhetheroreportableo ooo:oYes/Noo