Meenu And Ors vs Rubal Kumar And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
1
IN
N THE HIGH COURT OF PU
UNJAB & HARYANA AT
GARH
CHANDIG
FAO-4936-2017 (O&
M)
026
026
026
ts
Reserved on : 13.10.20
Pronounced on: 31.10.20
Uploaded on: 31.10.20
Smt. Mee
enu and another
..... Appellant
VERSU
US
umar and others
Rubal Ku
CORAM
Present:
..... Responden
nts
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Mr. Rajesh K. Moudgil, Adv
Ms. Nandini Moudgil, Advo
vocate and
ocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.3-insuran
nce company.
*
NDER SINGH NALWA, J.
*
DEEPIN
1.
The present appeal has been
n filed by the appellants-claima
ants
against th
he award dated 15.03.2017 pass
sed by the Motor Accident Clai
ims
Tribunal,
Kurukshetra (hereinafter refer
rred to as the ‘Tribunal’) seek
king
enhancem
ment of compensation.
2.
The brief facts of the case
are that on 02.09.2015, Maya
ank
(since de
ceased) along with his father-
Barony Sharma were going fr
rom
village B
Baraut to the house of his m
maternal uncle at village Binjo
oul,
District P
Panipat. They started their j
journey in a three-wheeler fr
rom
village B
araut and at about 2:00 PM, the
ey reached Badchpur turn, Ladw
wa.
They wer
re standing on kacha portion
of the road and were waiting
g to
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
2
cross the
road for the purpose of taking
g the motorcycle. Mayank (sin
nce
deceased)
) was standing near his father-B
Barony Sharma. In the meantim
me,
a Tata Su
umo bearing registration No.HR
R-65-4689 (hereinafter referred
d to
as the ‘o
offending vehicle’), driven by
y respondent No.1-Rubal Kum
mar,
driver of
f the offending vehicle, at ver
ry fast speed and in a rash a
and
negligent
t manner, came from Ladwa
side without blowing horn a
and
struck ag
ainst Mayank, due to which, M
Mayank (since deceased) fell do
own
on the ro
oad and was crushed under th
he tyres of the offending vehic
cle.
Due to th
he accident, Mayank (since dec
ceased) received multiple, serio
ous
and griev
vous injuries on various parts
of his body. After the accide
ent,
responden
nt No.1-Rubal Kumar, driver
of the offending vehicle stopp
ped
his vehic
cle and got down from the veh
hicle. Barony Sharma (father
r of
Mayank-s
since deceased) noted down the
e number of the offending vehic
cle,
but later
on, respondent No.1-Rubal
Kumar, driver of the offend
ding
vehicle f
fled from the spot along with
his vehicle. After the accide
ent,
Mayank (
(since deceased) was taken to
CHC Ladwa. Due to his serio
ous
condition
n, he was referred to LNJP Ho
ospital, Kurukshetra, but Maya
ank
(since dec
ceased) succumbed to his injur
ries on the way to LNJP Hospi
ital,
Kurukshe
etra. An FIR No.251 dated 02
2.09.2015 was registered agai
inst
responden
nt No.1-Rubal Kumar, driver
of the offending vehicle un
nder
Sections
279 and 304-A IPC at P
Police Station Ladwa, Dist
rict
Kurukshe
etra. Mayank (since deceased)
) was aged about seven years a
and
was a stu
udent. As Mayank died on acco
ount of rash and negligent driv
ving
of the re
espondent No.1-driver of the
offending vehicle, the claima
ants
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
3
being par
rents of Mayank (since decea
ased) filed a claim petition un
nder
Sections
166 and 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, before
the
Tribunal
seeking compensation of Rs.1
15,00,000/- along with interest
t @
18% per a
annum from the date of acciden
nt till actual realization.
3.
Respondents No.1 and 2
being driver and owner of
the
offending
g vehicle duly filed their written
n statement to the abovesaid cla
aim
petition f
filed by the parents of the May
yank (since deceased). It was
the
case of
respondent No.1-driver and
respondent No.2-owner that
the
offending
g vehicle had been falsely inv
olved in the alleged accident.
It
was also
their case that respondent No.
1-driver had a valid and effect
tive
driving li
icense and as the offending veh
hicle was insured with respond
dent
No.3-insu
urance company, as such, resp
pondent No.3-insurance compa
any
was liable
e to pay the compensation in c
case the claim petition filed by
the
claimants
s was allowed. It was further t
their case that FIR was registe
ered
against re
espondent No.1-driver in collu
usion with the local police just
t to
grab mon
ney from the respondents.
4.
A separate written statemen
nt was filed by respondent No
o.3-
insurance
e company. It was the cas
se of respondent No.3-insuran
nce
company
that the Tribunal had no jur
isdiction to entertain and try
the
claim pe
etition. It was also the cas
se of respondent No.3-insuran
nce
company
that the claim petition was fi
iled by the claimants in collus
sion
with and
at the instance of respondents
No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and ow
wner
of the off
ffending vehicle to grab money
y from respondent No.3-insuran
nce
company
. It was further the case of res
pondent No.3-insurance compa
any
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
4
that there
e was breach of the terms and c
conditions of the insurance poli
icy.
It was als
so the case of respondent No.3
3-insurance company that no su
uch
accident a
as alleged, ever took place.
5.
The abovesaid claim petiti
ion was decided in favour of
the
claimants
s vide award dated 15.03.2017
7 passed by the Tribunal. As
per
the abov
vesaid award dated 15.03.201
17 passed by the Tribunal,
the
claimants
s were held entitled for compen
nsation amounting to Rs.5,00,00
00/-
in equal s
shares, payable by respondents
s No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner a
and
insurance
e company jointly and severall
ly, along with interest @ 9%
per
annum fr
rom the date of filing of the cla
aim petition till actual realizati
ion.
A perusa
al of the abovesaid award d
dated 15.03.2017 passed by
the
Tribunal
would show that the Tribun
nal has taken into considerat
tion
notional
income of Mayank (since dec
ceased) as Rs.30,000/- per ann
num
and a m
multiplier of 15 has been app
lied while assessing the loss
of
dependen
ncy and Rs.50,000/- has been
awarded under the conventio
onal
heads.
6.
Aggrieved against the awar
rd dated 15.03.2017 passed by
the
Tribunal,
the appellants-claimants have
e filed the present appeal seek
king
enhancem
ment of compensation.
7.
Learned counsel appearin
g on behalf of the appellan
nts-
claimants
s submits that a perusal of the a
abovesaid award dated 15.03.20
017
passed by
y the Tribunal would show tha
at the notional income of Maya
ank
(since dec
ceased) has been assessed as Rs
s.30,000/- per annum. He subm
mits
that it is w
well settled law that in case of d
death of a minor, minimum wa
ges
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
5
as applica
able to skilled workers fixed by
y the relevant State has to be tak
ken
into cons
sideration, which are applicable
e on the date of accident, for
the
purpose o
of assessing the income of the d
deceased. Learned counsel subm
mits
that as p
per the Notification dated 07
.10.2015 issued by the State
of
Haryana,
minimum wages fixed in
a case of skilled worker w
was
Rs.6406.6
67/- w.e.f. 01.07.2015. Acco
ordingly, the abovesaid minim
mum
wages as
applicable to a skilled worker s
should be taken into considerat
tion
while ass
sessing the income of decease
ed-Mayank. Learned counsel a
also
submits th
hat a perusal of the abovesaid a
award dated 15.03.2017 passed
d by
the Tribu
unal would show that a multipl
lier of 15 has been applied by
the
Tribunal
while assessing the loss of dep
pendency. He submits that in li
ight
of the jud
dgment dated 08.08.2025 passe
ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Co
ourt
of India
in Civil Appeal No.10278 of
f 2025 (Arising out of SLP (
(C)
No.14444
4 of 2025) titled as Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Babab
hai
Nagjibha
ai Rabari and another, multip
plier of 18 should be applied wh
hile
awarding
g the compensation to the appell
lants-claimants.
8.
Learned counsel appearing
g on behalf of respondent No
o.3-
insurance
e company could not dispute th
he fact that in case of death o
of a
minor, m
minimum wages as applicable t
to a skilled worker, fixed by
the
relevant S
State on the date of accident h
has to be taken into considerat
tion
for the pu
urpose of assessing the income o
of the deceased. Learned coun
sel,
however,
submits that the Tribunal has r
rightly applied the multiplier of
f 15
while ass
sessing the loss of dependency
y. Reliance has been placed up
pon
the judgm
ment dated 02.04.2013 passed b
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t of
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
6
India in
n case titled as Reshma
a Kumari and others V
Vs.
Madan M
Mohan and another, 2013 (9)
SCC 65 and also judgment da
ated
15.12.202
25 passed by the Hon’ble Supre
eme Court of India in case titled
d as
Devendr
a Kumar Tripathi and othe
ers Vs. The Oriental Insuran
nce
Company
y Limited and another where
ein it has been held that in ca
ases
where ag
ge of the deceased is upto 15
years, multiplier of 15 should
be
applied fo
or the purpose of assessing the l
loss of dependency.
9.
I have heard the learned co
ounsel appearing on behalf of
the
parties an
nd have perused the paper-book
k with their able assistance.
10.
In regard to contention
raised by the learned coun
nsel
appearing
g on behalf of the appellants-c
claimants that minimum wages
s as
applicabl
e to skilled worker, fixed by
the relevant State on the date
e of
accident
should be taken into considera
ation for assessing the income
e of
the decea
ased is concerned, it is well
settled that in case of death
or
permanen
nt disability in a case of minor,
, minimum wages as applicable
e to
skilled w
worker, fixed by the relevant St
tate on the date of accident has
s to
be taken
into consideration for the purpo
ose of assessing the income of
the
deceased.
. It is not in dispute that the m
minimum wages fixed by the St
tate
of Haryan
na which is relevant for the pu
urpose of adjudication of this c
case
was Rs.6
6406.67/- at the time of accide
ent. As such, the income of
the
deceased-
-Mayank is assessed as Rs.6,40
07/- per month (round off).
11.
In regard to contention
raised by the learned coun
nsel
appearing
g on behalf the appellants-claim
mants that multiplier of 18 sho
ould
have been
n applied instead of multiplier
of 15 for the purpose of assess
sing
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
7
loss of de
ependency is concerned, the H
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
a in
the case t
titled as Reshma Kumari and
d others Vs. Madan Mohan a
and
another,
2013 (9) SCC 65 decided o
on 02.04.2013, has held that i
n a
case, wh
ere age of the deceased is up
pto 15 years, irrespective of
the
Sections
166 and 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, under wh
hich
the claim
m of compensation has been m
made, multiplier of 15 should
be
applied.
A perusal of the abovesaid
judgment would show that
the
Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consider
red the judgment passed by
the
Hon’ble
Supreme Court titled as Smt
t. Sarla Verma and others V
Vs.
Delhi Tr
ransport Corporation and an
nother, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil)
77.
Reshma
Kumari’s case (supra), was
again considered by the Hon’
’ble
Supreme
Court of India in the case title
ed as Devendra Kumar Tripa
athi
and oth
ers Vs. The Oriental Insu
urance Company Limited a
and
another
decided on 15.12.2025. In the
e abovesaid case, it has been h
held
by the Ho
on’ble Supreme Court that in
case of a minor, who is upto
the
age of 15
years, multiplier of 15 should b
be applied.
12.
In regard to the reliance
e made by the learned coun
nsel
appearing
g on behalf of the appellants-c
claimants on the judgment pas
sed
by the Ho
on’ble Supreme Court of India
in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel’s c
ase
(supra)
for the purpose of applicatio
on of multiplier of 18 instead
d of
multiplier
r of 15 for the purpose of a
assessing loss of dependency
y is
concerned
d, a perusal of the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supre
eme
Court of I
India in Hitesh Nagjibhai Pate
el’s case (supra) would show t
that
in the a
abovesaid judgment, the Ho
on’ble Supreme Court has
not
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
8
considere
ed the judgment passed by th
he Larger Bench of the Hon’
’ble
Supreme
Court of India i.e. Reshma
Kumari’s case (supra). Ev
ven
otherwise
e also, it is well settled law tha
at if there is a contrary view tak
ken
by the C
Courts on the similar issue by
y the Co-ordinate Benches, la
ater
judgment
t has to be followed. Devendra
a Kumar Tripathi’s case (sup
pra)
is a later
judgment of Co-ordinate Benc
ch of the Hon’ble Supreme Co
ourt
of India i
in respect of application of mu
ultiplier in case of a minor for
the
purpose o
of assessing the loss of depend
dency for the purpose of grant
t of
compensa
ation.
13.
Taking into consideration
the view taken by the Hon’
’ble
Supreme
Court of India, in Reshm
ma Kumari’s case (supra) a
and
Devendr
a Kumar Tripathi’s case (su
upra), it is held that the Tribu
unal
has rightl
ly applied multiplier of 15 in
case of deceased-Mayank (ag
ged
about 07
years) instead of multiplier of 1
18 for the purpose of assessing
the
loss of de
ependency.
14.
In view of the facts of the
e case and the judgments refer
rred
above, t
the appellants-claimants are
e held entitled for enhanc
ced
compensa
ation, reassessed as hereunder:
nt
Assessmen
ccident : 02.09.2015
Date of Ac
Age of dec
ceased : 07 years
wages of a skilled workman
Income:
as per minimum w
: parents
Claimants
1. Annua
al Income
Rs. 76,884/-
(Rs.6,407/- per month)
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
9
2. Future
e prospects @ 40%
Rs. 1,07,638/-
Rs. 76
6,884/- (+) Rs.30,754/-
3. Deduc
ction (1/2 )
Rs. 53,819/-
07,638/- (-) Rs.53,819/-
Rs.1,0
4. Multip
plier
15
5. Loss o
Rs.8,07,285/-
of dependency
,819/- x 15
Rs.53
6. Funer
al Expenses
Rs.15,000/-
7. Loss o
of estate
Rs.15,000/-
8. Loss o
Rs.80,000/-
of consortium
,000/- x 2
Rs.40
9. Amou
unt awarded by the Tribunal
Rs.5,00,000/-
nced amount
Rs.4,17,285/-
10. Enhan
11. Final
enhanced compensation
Rs.9,17,285/-
15.
In view of the above, the a
award dated 15.03.2017 passed
by
the Tribu
unal is modified to an extent tha
at the appellants-claimants are h
held
entitled t
to final enhanced compensati
ion of Rs.9,17,285/- along w
with
interest @
@ 9% per annum (as awarded b
by the Tribunal), from the date
e of
filing of t
the claim petition till actual real
lization
16.
The respondents No.1 to 3 b
being driver, owner and insuran
nce
company
of the offending vehicle ar
re directed to deposit the fi
inal
enhanced
d compensation amounting to R
Rs.9,17,285/- along with inter
est,
jointly an
nd severally with the Tribunal
l within a period of two mon
nths
from the
date of passing of the judgment
t.
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-493
6-2017 (O&M)
10
17.
The Tribunal is further di
irected to disburse the enhanc
ced
compensa
ation, along with interest, in
the accounts of the appellan
nts-
claimants
s as apportioned by the Tr
ribunal (in equal shares). T
The
appellant
s-claimants are directed to fu
urnish their bank account deta
ails
with the T
Tribunal.
18.
In view of the above, the
present appeal is allowed in
the
abovesaid
d terms.
19.
Pending application(s), if an
ny, shall also stand(s) disposed
d of
according
gly.
31.10.202
Ramandeep S
Whether sp
Whether R
(D
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
A)
26
JUDGE
Singh
peaking / reasoned
Yes / No
Yes/ No
Reportable
RAMANDEEP SINGH
2026.10.31 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document