Navdeep Bhanot vs Hardayal Singh And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 (1) FAO-5266-2003 (O&M)
Date of decision :02.11.2026
NIPUN BAGROY . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
HARDAYAL SINGHAND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
(2) FAO-5267-2003 (O&M)
NIPUN BAGROY . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
HARDAYAL SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(3) FAO-5268-2003
NAVDEEP BHANOT AND ANOTHER . .. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
HARDAYAL SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
(4) FAO-5269-2003 (O&M)
BRAHM DATT BHANOT . .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
HARDAYAL SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Ms. Kiran Bala, Advocate and
Mr. Harmeet Kaur Bhatia, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeals have been filed by the appellants-claimants being
aggrieved by award dated 12.08.2003 passed by learned Motor Accidents
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -2-
and other connected cases
Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’) seeking
enhancement of compensation . Since the present appeals have arisen from
common impugned award passed by learned Tribunal vide which four claim
petitions preferred on account of motor vehicular accident dated 14.12.1998
caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving TATA
407 bearing registration No.HR-03GA-0105, were decided and dispute involved
in all the appeals is more or less identical, hence, they are being decided by way
of this common judgment. Gist of appeals being decided is as under:-
Sr. Case title before the MACT Case
No. MACT No. / Appeal
No.
Claim pertains Compensati
to/claim by on awarded
by the
Tribunal
1. Nipun Bagroy Vs.
Hardayal Singh &
Ors
MACT No.
306 of
1999/FAO
No.5267 of
2003
Compensation
for death of his
Satish/son
Rs.9,35,000/-
2. Nipun Bagroy Vs.
Hardayal Singh and
Ors.
MACT No.
305 of
1999/FAO
No.5266 of
2003
Compensation
for death of
Kusum /by son
Rs.7,35,000/-
Compensation
for death of
Vijay Bhanot
/by
Husband and
son
3. Navdeep Bhanot &
Anr. Vs. Hardayal
and Ors.
MACT
No.10 of
1999/FAO
No.5268 of
2003.
Rs.4,87,000/-
4. Bharamdutt Vs. MACT No.
Hardayal and Ors. 304 of
1999/FAO
No.5269 of
2003.
Compensation
for injuries
suffered
Rs.15,000/-
2. Since in present appeal only issue raised by appellants-claimants is
as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross-objections
challenging finding of negligence on the part of respondent-driver while driving
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -3-
and other connected cases
offending vehicle has been preferred by any of respondents, therefore, detailed
facts regarding manner of accident are not being noticed for sake of brevity.
FAO No. 5266 of 2003 titled as “ Nipun Bagroy Vs. Hardayal Singh and
Ors.”
3. The claimant i.e. son of Kusum Bagroy (hereinafter referred to as
‘the deceased’), filed the claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation
due to untimely death of the deceased.
4. The learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:-
Income of deceased Rs.1,10,000/- per annum
rd
Deduction 1/3
Multiplier 10
Loss of dependency Rs.7,33,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.7,35,000/-
5. The appellants-claimants have challenged the award passed by the
learned Tribunal on the following grounds:
•
That the learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income
of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the claimants.
•
That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct
multiplier, as per age of deceased.
•
That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses
of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled
principles of law.
•
That no addition towards future prospects has been made
while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects
ought to have been added, as per age of deceased.
•
That the learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -4-
and other connected cases
appropriate compensation under the conventional heads,
namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of parental
consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. It is the case of the appellant-claimant that the deceased was 40
years old at the time of accident and was running a business. In order to establish
that the deceased was doing business the appellant – claimant had placed on
record the income tax returns pertaining to the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-
99 ExP12, ExP13 and ExP15 respectively filed before death of the deceased.
The income for the assessment year 1996-97 was Rs.1,12,974/-, for the year
199-98 was Rs.1,18,638/- and for the year 1998-99 it was Rs.1,11,891/. The
learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.1,10,000/- per annum
on the basis of the income tax returns.
7. On consideration, I find that learned Tribunal has erred in taking
the income of the deceased as Rs.1,10,000/- per annum, instead of taking
average of the three income tax returns filed. In view of judgment of
Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr Vs. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims)
Sriram General Insurance Company Limited & Ors , 2026 INSC 661 arising
out of SLP (C) No.27220 of 2024 the income of the deceased ought to be
determined by learned Tribunal on the basis of average of income shown in
assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 ExP12, ExP13 and ExP15 as
Rs.1,14,501/- per annum. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has duly
noticed difference between a salaried person and a self employed person. It has
taken note of fact that in case of salaried persons income tax return of one year
is sufficient as income is stable and regular, and has no downwards fluctuation;
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -5-
and other connected cases
whereas, in case of self employed persons, their being income fluctuations,
thereupon, the average of three years income tax returns has to be taken.
8. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,14,501/- per
annum. However, learned Tribunal had further erred in not taking into
consideration future prospects for calculating loss of dependency.
9. Since the deceased was 40 years of age and is survived by one
dependent, future prospects to the extent of 25% are required to be added while
determining the loss of dependency in terms of mandate given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others , 2017 (16) SCC 680. Further, as there is one dependent, deduction
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is liable to be restricted
rd
to 1/3 of the income in view of the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr ., 2009 (6) SCC 121.
Appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’ instead of ‘10’ as deceased was 40 years
old.
10. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants
is liable to be re-computed by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,14,501/ -
rd
per annum , after adding 25% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3 towards
personal and living expenses and applying the multiplier of ‘15’ .
11. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants-
claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium . It is, however,
made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answers the reference regarding
quantum of compensation under conventional heads made in Hasina Yasmin &
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -6-
and other connected cases
Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd ., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919, in favour
of the appellants, the appellants shall be at liberty to seek the said amount by
moving an appropriate application in this regard.
12. Re-worked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as
under:-
Rs.1,14,501/- per
Income Rs.1,14,501/- per annum
annum
25%
Future Prospects Rs.1,43,126/-
(Rs.1,14,501/- + 28625)
rd
1/3
Deduction Rs.95,417/-
(Rs.1,43,126/- - 47709)
Multiplier 15 15
Total loss of dependency Rs.95,417/- x 15 Rs.14,31,255/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of parental
consortium to claimant
No.1
Rs.40,000/-
Total Compensation
Rs.15,01,255/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation
Rs.7,35,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Rs.15,01,255/- (awarded
in appeal) – Rs.7,35,000/-
(awarded by the Tribunal)
Enhanced amount of
compensation
Rs.7,66,255/-
FAO No.5267-2003 titled as “ Nipun Bagroy Vs. Hardayal Singh & Ors”
13. The claimant i.e. son of Satish Bagroy (hereinafter referred to as
‘the deceased’), filed the claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation
due to untimely death of the deceased.
14. The learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:
Income of deceased Rs.1,40,000/- per annum
rd
Deduction 1/3
Multiplier 10
Loss of dependency Rs.9,35,000/-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -7-
and other connected cases
(Rs.93,500/- x10)
Total compensation awarded Rs.9,35,000/-
15. The appellants-claimants have challenged the award passed by the
learned Tribunal on the following grounds:
•
That the learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the
income of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the
claimants.
•
That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct
multiplier, as per age of deceased.
•
That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses
of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled
principles of law.
•
That no addition towards future prospects has been made
while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects
ought to have been added, as per age of deceased.
•
That the learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and
appropriate compensation under the conventional heads,
namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of parental
consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. It is the case of the appellant-claimant that the deceased was 42
years old at the time of accident and was running a business. In order to establish
that the deceased was doing business the appellant – claimant had placed on
record the income tax returns pertaining to the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-
99 ExP-6, ExP-6/A and ExP-7 respectively filed before death of the deceased.
The income for the assessment year 1996-97 was Rs.1,92,345, for the year 199-
98 was Rs.1,43,184/- and for the year 1998-99 it was Rs.1,38,226/. The learned
Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.1,40,000/- per annum on the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -8-
and other connected cases
basis of the income tax returns.
17. On consideration, I find that learned Tribunal has erred in taking
the income of the deceased as Rs.1,40,000/- per annum, instead of taking
average of the three income tax returns filed. In view of judgment of
Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr Vs. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims)
Sriram General Insurance Company Limited & Ors , 2026 INSC 661 arising
out of SLP (C) No.27220 of 2024 the income of the deceased ought to be
determined by learned Tribunal on the basis of average of assessment years
1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 ExP-6, ExP-6/A and Ex.P-7 which is
Rs.1,58,000/- per annum. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has duly
noticed difference between a salaried person and a self employed person. It has
taken note of fact that in case of salaried persons income tax return of one year
is sufficient as income is stable and regular, and has no downwards fluctuation;
whereas, in case of self employed persons, their being income fluctuations,
thereupon, the average of three years income tax returns has to be taken.
Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,58,000/- per annum.
18. Since the deceased was 42 years of age, future prospects to the
extent of 25% are required to be added while determining the loss of
dependency in terms of mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 (16)
SCC 680. Further, as there is one dependent, deduction towards the personal and
rd
living expenses of the deceased is liable to be restricted to 1/3 of the income in
view of the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr ., 2009 (6) SCC 121. Appropriate multiplier
would be ‘14’ instead of ‘10’ as deceased was 42 years old.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -9-
and other connected cases
19. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants
is liable to be re-computed by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,58,000/-
rd
per annum, after adding 25% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3 towards
personal and living expenses and applying the multiplier of ‘14’.
20. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants-
claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium. It is, however, made
clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answers the reference regarding
quantum of compensation under conventional heads made in Hasina Yasmin &
Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd ., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919, in favour
of the appellants, the appellants shall be at liberty to seek the said amount by
moving an appropriate application in this regard.
21. Re-worked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as
under:-
Rs.1,58,000/- per
Income Rs.1,58,000/- per annum
annum
25%
Future Prospects Rs.1,97,500/-
(Rs.1,58,000/- + 39500)
rd
1/3
Deduction Rs.1,31,667/-
(Rs.1,97,500/- - 65833)
Multiplier 14 14
Total loss of dependency Rs.1,31,667/- x 14 Rs.18,43,338/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of parental
consortium to claimant
No.1
Rs.40,000/-
Total Compensation
Rs.19,13,338/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation
Rs.9,35,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs.19,13,338/- (awarded Rs.9,78,338/-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -10-
and other connected cases
compensation in appeal) – Rs.9,35,000/-
(awarded by the Tribunal)
FAO No.5268 of 2003 titled as “Navdeep Bhanot Vs. Hardayal Singh and
Others ”
22. The claimants i.e. husband and son of deceased-Vijay Bhanot
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed the claim petition seeking
enhancement of compensation due to untimely death of the deceased.
23. The learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:-
Income of deceased Rs.30,000/- per month
rd
Deduction 1/3
Multiplier 2
Loss of dependency Rs.4,80,000/-
(Rs20,000/- X 12 X2)
Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.4,87,000/-
24. The appellants-claimants have challenged the award passed by the
learned Tribunal on the following grounds:
•
That the learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the
income of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the
claimants.
•
That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct
multiplier, as per age of deceased.
•
That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses
of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled
principles of law.
•
That no addition towards future prospects has been made
while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -11-
and other connected cases
ought to have been added, as per age of deceased.
•
That the learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and
appropriate compensation under the conventional heads,
namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal
and parental consortium, in accordance with the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
25. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was 62
years of age at the of accident and was working as a book keeper on part time
basis. In order to prove the pleaded income and vocation of the deceased the
appellants- claimants have relied upon the letter dated 26.11.2002 ExP23
certified by the High Commission of India in London, issued by Terminus
Motoring Centre, 163-165 London Road, Kingston Surray KT2 6QW, whereby
it has been stated that the deceased used to carry out book keeping duties on part
time basis and was being paid $290 per month. Another letter has been placed
on record by the appellants- claimants dated 7.11.2000 ExP25 issued by
Barclays Mercantile Ltd. Head office, whereby it has been stated that the
deceased was also paid pension at the rate of $126.93 per month. Thus, the total
income of the deceased at the time of her death was $ 416.93 per month. The
learned Tribunal has taken the income of deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month on
the basis of Ex. P-23 & Ex. P-25.
26. Since the deceased was 62 years of age no future prospects are
required to be added for determining loss of dependency in terms of mandate by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others , 2017 (16) SCC 680. Further, as there were two dependents,
deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is liable to
rd
be restricted to 1/3 of the income in view of the principles laid down in Smt.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -12-
and other connected cases
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr ., 2009 (6) SCC
121. Appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘7’ as deceased was 62 years
old.
27. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants
is liable to be re-computed by taking the monthly income of the deceased at
rd
Rs.30,000/-, deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses and applying
the multiplier of ‘7’.
28. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants-
claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000 /- towards loss of estate. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000 /- towards loss of spousal consortium and appellant-
claimant No.2 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000 /- towards loss of
parental consortium. It is, however, made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme
Court answers the reference regarding quantum of compensation under
conventional heads made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance
Co. Ltd ., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919, in favour of the appellants, the appellants
shall be at liberty to seek the said amount by moving an appropriate application
in this regard.
29. Re-worked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as
under:-
Rs.30,000/-
Income Rs.30,000/- per month
per month
rd
1/3
Deduction Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- - 10000)
Multiplier 7 7
Total loss of
Rs.20,000/- x 7 x12 Rs.16,80,000/-
dependency
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of spousal Rs.40,000/-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -13-
and other connected cases
consortium to claimant
No.1
Loss of parental
consortium to claimant
No.2
Rs.40,000/-
Total Compensation
Rs.17,90,000/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation
Rs.4,87,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Rs.17,90,000/-
(awarded in appeal) –
Rs.4,87,000/- (awarded by
Enhanced amount of
compensation
Rs.13,03,000/-
the Tribunal)
FAO No. 5269 of 2003 titled as “ Bharamdutt Vs. Hardayal and Ors.”
30. Learned Tribunal had awarded a lump sum compensation of
Rs.15,000/- to the claimant-appellant on account of injuries sustained in the
accident.
31. It is the case of injured/appellant/claimant that he sustained head
injuries in the accident dated 14.12.1998. That he was initially taken to Civil
Hospital Dera Bassi and thereafter referred to Govt. Medical College and
College Sector 32, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for one day. He
placed on record treatment bill Ex.P-42 amounting to Rs.350/-. Appellant-
claimant has not placed any proof regarding the disability suffered by him on
account of accident. Therefore, in absence of any proof regarding the disability
and extent of injuries suffered by appellant-claimant, the injuries suffered by
him are treated as simple in nature. Sufficient material to conclude nature of
injuries, nature of treatment, period of hospitalization and permanent disability
is not available, however, keeping in view the fact that appellant-claimant
remained admitted in the hospital and suffered simple injures a consolidated
amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the heads medical expenses, special diet,
transportation and attendant charges. The appellant – claimant is also awarded
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
FAO-5266-2003 (O&M) -14-
and other connected cases
Rs.20,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of
income during treatment. Accordingly the appellant-claimant is awarded
additional amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation.
32. In FAO No.5266 of 2003, FAO No. 5267 of 2003 & FAO No. 5268
of 2003 appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation (except
for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of
estate) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation
under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till
realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per
award.
33. In FAO No.5269 of 2003 appellants/claimants shall be entitled to
enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall
be as per the award.
34. Appeals are allowed in above terms.
35. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
36. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.
02.11.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
Manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.04 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document