Devinder Singh vs Kulvinder And Ors.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
1 -
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
255
Date of decision: 07.09.2026
1. FAO-2184-2002
RANBIR ETC. ....Appellants
Versus
KULVINDER ETC ...Respondents
2. FAO-2185-2002
JAGBIR SINGH ....Appellant
Versus
KULVINDER ETC ...Respondents
3. FAO-2186-2002
RAM KISHAN ....Appellant
Versus
KULVINDER ETC ...Respondents
4. FAO-2189-2002
DEVINDER SINGH ....Appellant
Versus
KULVINDER & ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants.
Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate,
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate &
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
2 -
-
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. A perusal of the Award shows that driver, owner and respondent 3-
Insurance Company have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and
severally. The Insurance Company is already represented by its counsel and,
therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1 and 2
who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and issuance of
notice to respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with.
2. This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid four appeals, as they have
arisen out of the same accident and instituted against the same award.
3. These appeals i.e. FAO No.2184, 2185, 2186 and 2189 of 2002 have
been instituted by the claimants/appellants against the Award dated
31.08.2001 passed by MACT, Rohtak ( for short “Tribunal ”) for
enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Cases No.134, 138, 139
and 140 of 1996, in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ( for short, `Act ’) vide which sums of Rs.62,400/-, Rs.84,000/-,
Rs.81,600/- and Rs.54,000/- respectively have been awarded as
compensation on account of the deaths of Smt. Premo Devi, Smt. Santosh,
Ramesh Kumar and Smt. Sita Devi respectively, who lost their lives in a
motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the
part of respondent No.1 while driving offending Bus bearing No.DL-IP-
1638 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), which was insured with respondent
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
3 -
-
No.3-United India Insurance Company.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the
learned Tribunal:-
1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to Ms.Archna, Jasbir and death
of Smt.Salochna, Pushpender, Smt.Sita Devi, Manjit, Smt.Shanti Devi,
Smt.Santosh, Ramesh, Smt.Premo Devi was the result of rash and negligent
driving of bus no.DL-IP-1638 by Kulvinder Singh, respondent no.1? ...OPP
2. To what amount the petitioners are entitled to claim as compensation and
also from whom? ...OPP
3. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of Ram Kishan,
driver of tractor No.HR-19-3178 for this accident? ...OPR
4. Whether the driver of the bus as well as of the tractor were not having the
valid driving licence? If so, to what effect? ...OPP
5. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? ...OPR
6. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present
petition? ...OPR
7. Relief.
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file,
the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded
compensation to the claimants/appellants. However, it was held that
insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the insured.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred by the
claimants. The material on files has been perused and parties have been
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
4 -
-
heard.
8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals
relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts
regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in
detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident in
question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle owned by respondent
No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3– Insurance Company. No
appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents No.1 and 2,
challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not
required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award
vide which compensation of Rs.62,400/-, Rs.84,000/-, Rs.81,600/- and
Rs.54,000/- have been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is
liable to be modified and enhanced compensation should be awarded.
Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed
on lower side. Learned counsel contended that deceased namely Ramesh
Kumar, Smt. Premo Devi, Smt. Santosh, and Smt. Sita Devi were home-
makers and the Tribunal has assessed their dependency on lower side and
while referring to judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
(civil) 33915 of 2025, Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. Vs. Surjeet & Ors.,
learned counsel argued that in Shishu Pal’s case (supra) , accident had
taken place in the year 2001 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has assessed
the income of a home-maker to be Rs.30,000/- per month and he prayed that
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
5 -
-
income of the deceased be adequately assessed. Learned counsel further
contends that future prospects have also not been added to the monthly
income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. It was also
argued that for the deceased namely Ramesh Kumar, the Tribunal
erroneously applied a formula reducing the dependency on the assumption
of future marriage, which is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel next
contends that no compensation has been awarded under conventional heads
i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed
that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same be suitably
enhanced. Learned counsel next contended that Tribunal has failed to grant
any interest on the compensation awarded to the claimants without
assigning any cogent reasons and they are entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum even on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of
filing of claim petition till the payment was made to the claimants by the
respondents. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the
appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , 2017 (16) SCC 680 National
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other , 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil)
333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram & Others , (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the
award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has
been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
6 -
-
compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. Learned
counsel further contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2021 (SC)
353, titled Kirti Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has laid down the
parameters for assessment of income of homemakers, which is a judgment
rendered by three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereas, judgment
in Shishu Pal’s case (supra) has been rendered by a Division Bench in
which Kirti’s case (supra) was also cited but the same has not been
followed in letter and spirit and since judgment in Kirti’s case (supra) has
been rendered by a Larger Bench, the same has to be followed and Shishu
Pal’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant cannot
be relied upon.
11. Before assessing the compensation, the point to be determined
is as to whether the income of the home-maker should be assessed on the
basis of law laid down by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shishu Pal’s case (supra) or in view of law laid down by a Larger Bench in
Kirti’s case (supra).
12. In Shishu Pal’s case (supra), a Division Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court assessed the monthly income of a home-maker to be
Rs.30,000/- per month in a case in which accident had taken place in the
year 2001. In Kirti’s case (supra), a decision rendered by three Judges of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that income of a home-maker
should atleast be assessed by adopting the lowest minimum wages
applicable for unskilled workers to which future prospects should be added.
In addition to it, 25% amount should be added towards gratuitous income
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
7 -
-
on account of services rendered by the wife to the family. In this manner in
Kirti’s case (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters
for assessing the income of a home-maker while determining the
compensation in claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, the
decision rendered by the larger Bench shall prevail over the law laid down
in Shishu Pal’s case (supra) regardless of the fact whether larger Bench
decision was rendered earlier or later in time. In holding so, I have relied
upon AIR 1974 SC 1596 Mattulal v. Radhe Lal and AIR 1976 SC 2433
UOI Vs. K.S. Subramanian .
Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO No.2189 of 2002 “Devender
Singh and others Vs. Kulvinder Singh and others”:-
13. Case of the claimants is that Smt. Sita Devi, aged about 25
years, lost her life in the accident in question on 24.03.1996. She has left
behind her husband Devender Singh and three minor children, namely,
Pardeep Kumar, Pooja and Indu. To prove their case, one of the claimant
namely Devender Singh, who is husband of the deceased stepped into the
witness-box as PW2 and deposed that his wife used to sell milk and do
embroidery and tailoring work and earn Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the
Tribunal did not rely upon his version and assessed the loss of dependency
to be Rs.500/- per month and taking into consideration her age to be 55
years as mentioned in post-mortem report Ex. PZ, the Tribunal awarded a
total compensation of Rs.54,000/-. However, the age of deceased has been
wrongly taken as 55 years. The claimant-Devender Singh, while appearing
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
8 -
-
as PW2 has stated his own age to be 32 years and in the claim petition, age
of deceased-Sita Devi has been mentioned as 25 years and the children are
also minors. It appears that the age of deceased has been wrongly recorded
as 55 years in the post-mortem report Ex. PZ and since the husband himself
was 32 years of age, the age of deceased is taken as 30 years.
14. Now the point to be determined is what should be the income
of the deceased as per law laid down in Kirti’s case (supra) . Deceased was a
home-maker and she used to sell milk and do some tailoring work as well
but the Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency to be Rs.500/- per
month but the approach of the Tribunal is highly erroneous. he Court
T
cannot lose sight of the fact that deceased must have been rendering
gratuitous services to the claimants being their wife and mother and she thus
has to be treated as a homemaker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti’s case
(supra) has held that the income of a home-maker should atleast be assessed
by adopting the lowest minimum wages applicable for unskilled workers to
which future prospects should be added and amount incurred on personal
expenses has also to be deducted. It has been further held that in view of
totality of circumstances and contribution of a housewife towards
household, 25% additional gratuitous income should be added to the salary.
In the present case, the accident had taken place on 24.03.1996 and during
those days, even the labourers used to earn around Rs.1800/- per month
which were the minimum wages and accordingly, the income of deceased is
taken as Rs.1800/- per month.
15. Deceased was 30 years of age a
nd as such, 40% amount has to
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
9 -
-
be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in
view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra) , which takes the income to Rs.2,520/- per month (Rs.1,800/-
+ Rs.720/-).
16. In view of law laid down in Kirti’s case (supra), 25%
additional amount has to be added on account of gratuitous services being
rendered by the deceased and after adding the same, the monthly income of
deceased comes out to Rs.3,150/- per month and Rs.37,800/- per annum.
17. Deceased has left behind four dependents and as such, 1/4th of
the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and
after deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to
Rs.28,350/-.
18. Deceased was 30 years of age and as such multiplier of 17 has
to be applied as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the
same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,81,950/-.
19. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of
Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on
account of funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case
(supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price
index prevalent in the year 1996 when the accident took place, claimant
No.1 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium,
Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate.
Likewise, claimants No.2 to 4 are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
10 -
-
each towards parental consortium, which takes the total compensation to
Rs.5,76,950/-.
20. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to the claimants is assessed
as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 30 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1,800/-
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.720/-
(As per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra)) Rs.2,520/- per month
4. For gratuitous services @ 25% Rs.630/-
(As per Kirti’s case (supra)) Rs.3,150/- per month
5. Total annual income Rs.3,150/- × 12
Rs.37,800/- per
annum
6. Number of dependents 4
7. Deduction towards personal Rs.9,450/-
expenses of the deceased (1/4th)
8 Annual loss of dependency Rs.28,350/-
9. Multiplier 17
10. Compensation on account of Rs.4,81,950/-
Loss of dependency
11. Compensation under
conventional heads to claimant
No.1
Rs.35,000/-
12. Parental Consortium to children Rs.60,000/-
of deceased (Rs.20,000/- each)
13. Total Compensation Rs.5,76,950/-
(rounded off to
Rs.5,77,000/-)
14. Interest 9%
Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO No.2184 of 2002
“Ranbir Singh and another Vs. Kulvinder Singh and others”:-
21. Smt. Premo Devi, aged about 40 years (as per post mortem report
Ex.PZ/2), lost her life in the accident on 24.03.1996, leaving behind her
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
11 -
-
husband Ranbir Singh and minor son Birbal.
22. Deceased was a home-maker and managed the household affairs and
the Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency to be Rs.400/- per month
but the approach of the Tribunal is highly erroneous. T he Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that deceased must have been rendering gratuitous services
to the claimants being their wife and mother and she thus has to be treated
as a homemaker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti’s case (supra) has held
that the income of a home-maker should atleast be assessed by adopting the
lowest minimum wages applicable for unskilled workers to which future
prospects should be added and amount incurred on personal expenses has
also to be deducted. It has been further held that in view of totality of
circumstances and contribution of a housewife towards household, 25%
additional gratuitous income should be added to the salary. In the present
case, the accident had taken place on 24.03.1996 and during those days,
even the labourers used to earn around Rs.1800/- per month which were the
minimum wages and accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as
Rs.1800/- per month.
23. Deceased was 40 years of age a
nd as such, 25% amount has to be
added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in
view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra) , which takes the income to Rs.2,250/- per month (Rs.1,800/-
+ Rs.450/-).
24. In view of law laid down in Kirti’s case (supra), 25%
additional amount has to be added on account of gratuitous services
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
12 -
-
being rendered by the deceased and after adding the same, the
monthly income of deceased comes out to Rs.2,812.50/- per month
and Rs.33,750/- per annum.
25. Deceased has left behind two dependents and as such, 1/3rd of
the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses
and after deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes
out to Rs.22,500/- to which multiplier of 15 has to be applied as per
Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the loss of
dependency comes to Rs.3,37,500/-.
26. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of
Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However, the judgment
in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and
taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the year 1996
when the accident took place, claimant No.1 is held entitled to a sum
of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimant No.2 is
also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards parental
consortium, which takes the total compensation to Rs.3,92,500/-.
27. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to the claimants is assessed
as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 40 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1,800/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
13 -
-
3. Monthly income after addition of Rs.2,250/-
25 % future prospects
4. 25% additional amount towards Rs.562.50/-
gratuitous services
5. Monthly income after addition of Rs.2,812.50/-
gratuitous services
6. Annual income after addition of Rs.33,750/-
gratuitous services
7. Deduction towards personal and Rs.11,250/-
living expenses @ 1/3rd per annum
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.22,500/-
9. Multiplier 15
10. Loss of dependency Rs.3,37,500/-
11. Compensation under
conventional heads to claimant
No.1.
Rs.35,000/-
12. Loss of parental consortium to Rs.20,000/-
claimant No.2
13. Total compensation Rs.3,92,500/-
14. Interest 9%
Compensation in FAO No.2185 of 2002 “Jagbir Singh and others Vs.
Kulvinder Singh and others”:-
28. Smt. Santosh, aged about 31 years (as per post mortem report
Ex.PW7/A), lost her life in the accident on 24.03.1996, leaving behind her
husband Jagbir Singh and three minor children, namely, Poonam, Rakesh
and Sonia.
29. Deceased was a homemaker, and her husband had to leave his driver
job in Gurgaon to look after the minor children after her death. The Tribunal
assessed her monthly dependency at Rs.500/- per month but the approach of
the Tribunal is highly erroneous. T he Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
deceased must have been rendering gratuitous services to the claimants
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
14 -
-
being their wife and mother and she thus has to be treated as a homemaker.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti’s case (supra) has held that the income of a
home-maker should atleast be assessed by adopting the lowest minimum
wages applicable for unskilled workers to which future prospects should be
added and amount incurred on personal expenses has also to be deducted. It
has been further held that in view of totality of circumstances and
contribution of a housewife towards household, 25% additional gratuitous
income should be added to the salary. In the present case, the accident had
taken place on 24.03.1996 and during those days, even the labourers used to
earn around Rs.1800/- per month which were the minimum wages and
accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.1800/- per month.
30. Deceased was 31 years of age a
nd as such, 40% amount has to be
added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in
view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra) , which takes the income to Rs.2,520/- per month
31. In view of law laid down in Kirti’s case (supra), 25%
additional amount has to be added on account of gratuitous services
being rendered by the deceased and after adding the same, the
monthly income of deceased comes out to Rs.3,150/- per month and
Rs.37,800/- per annum.
32. Deceased has left behind four dependents and as such, 1/4th of
the i ncome has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses
and after deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes
to which multiplier of 16 has to be applied as per
out to Rs.28,350/ -
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
15 -
-
Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the
compensation comes to Rs.4,53,600/-.
33. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a
sum of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e.
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However, the
judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year
2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the
year 1996 when the accident took place, claimant No.1 is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium,
Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate.
Likewise, claimants No.2 to 4 are also held entitled to a sum of
Rs.20,000/- each towards parental consortium, which takes the total
compensation to Rs.5,48,600/-.
34. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to the claimants is
assessed as under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 31 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1,800/-
Addition towards future Rs.720/-
prospects @ 40%
3. Monthly income after addition of Rs.2,520/-
40 % future prospects
4. 25% additional amount towards Rs.630/-
gratuitous services
5. Monthly income after addition of Rs.3,150/-
gratuitous services
6. Annual income after addition of Rs.37,800/-
gratuitous services
7. Deduction towards personal and Rs.9,450/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
16 -
-
living expenses @ 1/4th per annum
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.28,350/
9. Multiplier 16
10. Loss of dependency Rs.4,53,600/-
11. Compensation under
conventional heads to claimant
No.1
Rs.35,000/-
12. Loss of parental consortium to
claimants No.2 to 4 @
Rs.20,000/- each
Rs.60,000/-
13. Total compensation Rs.5,48,600/-
14. Interest 9%
Compensation in FAO No.2186 of 2002 “Ram Kishan and another Vs.
Kulvinder Singh and others”:-
35. Ramesh Kumar, aged about 19 years (as per post mortem report
Ex.PW6/A), was unmarried and lost his life in the accident on 24.03.1996,
leaving behind his parents Ram Kishan and Savitri.
36. As per version of claimants, deceased was an agriculturist and used to
sell milk. The Tribunal assessed his monthly dependency as Rs.1500/- per month
but the approach of the Tribunal is highly erroneous. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs.
Mukesh Kumar Yadav , has held that merely because claimants are unable to
produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the
deceased/victim is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the
Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of
probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be
the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where
the deceased/injured belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
17 -
-
mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social
status and facts and circumstances of the case. As such, some amount of guess
work has to be applied while assessing the income of the deceased. In the present
case, claimant was 19 years of age and and the accident had taken place on
24.03.1996 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a labourer were
around Rs.1,800/- per month and accordingly, income of deceased is taken as
Rs.1,800/- per month .
37. Deceased was 19 years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be
added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of
law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to
Rs.2,520/- per month (Rs.1,800/- + Rs.720/-) .
38. The present claim petition was instituted by parents of deceased
namely Ramesh Kumar, aged 19 years, who died in the accident in question. As
per law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok
Kushwaha & Ors , father has to be treated as financially dependent upon his
deceased son. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left behind two dependents.
Deceased was a bachelor and as such, 50% of the income has to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma’s
case (supra) . After deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes
out to Rs.1,260/- and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.15,120/- , to
which multiplier of 18 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in
Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , and after applying the same, the total loss of
dependency comes out to Rs.2,72,160/- .
39. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a sum of Rs.70,000/-
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
18 -
-
is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of
funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was
passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in
the year 1996 when the accident took place, claimant No.1 is held entitled to a
sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimant No.2 is also held
entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards filial consortium, which takes the total
compensation to Rs.3,27,160/-.
40. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to the claimants is assessed as
under:-
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Age of deceased 19 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.1,800/-
3. Addition towards future Rs.720/-
prospects @ 40%
4. Monthly income after addition of Rs.2,520/-
40% future prospects
5. Deduction towards personal and Rs.1,260/-
living expenses @ 50%
6. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.1,260/-
7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.15,120/-
8. Multiplier 18
9 Loss of dependency Rs.2,72,160/-
10. Compensation under
conventional heads to claimant
No.1.
Rs.35,000/-
11. Loss of filial consortium to Rs.20,000/-
claimant No.2.
12. Total compensation Rs.3,27,160/-
13. Interest 9%
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
19 -
-
41. As a result of afore-said discussion, all the four appeals are partly
accepted with costs, and the claimants are held entitled to enhanced
compensation as under:-
(i). In FAO No.2189 of 2002: The compensation is enhanced to
Rs.5,77,000/- from Rs.54,000/-, resulting in an enhancement of
Rs.5,23,000/-. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.75,000/-
each along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 to 4, while
the balance amount be paid to claimant No.1 along with proportionate
interest.
(ii). In FAO No.2184 of 2002: The compensation is enhanced to
Rs.3,92,500/- from Rs.62,400/-, resulting in an enhancement of
Rs.3,30,100/- (rounded off to Rs.3,30,000/-). Out of the enhanced
compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be
paid to claimant No.2, while the balance amount be paid to claimant No.1
along with proportionate interest.
(iii). In FAO No.2185 of 2002: The compensation is enhanced to
Rs.5,48,600/- from Rs.84,000/-, resulting in an enhancement of
Rs.4,64,600/- (rounded off to Rs.4,65,000/-). Out of the enhanced
compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with proportionate interest
be paid to claimants No.2 to 4, while the balance amount be paid to
claimant No.1 along with proportionate interest.
(iv). In FAO No.2186 of 2002: The compensation is enhanced to
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
20 -
-
Rs.3,27,160/- from Rs.81,600/-, resulting in an enhancement of
Rs.2,45,560/- (rounded it off to Rs.2,46,000/-) . The enhanced compensation
shall be distributed equally among the parents of the deceased along with
proportionate interest.
42. The Tribunal while awarding compensation has not awarded any
interest to the claimants, neither the interest has been allowed, nor it has
been denied and no reasons have been recorded as to why interest has not
been granted. Accordingly, it is held that claimants are entitled to interest @
9% per annum on the entire amount of compensation, including enhanced
compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. In
case the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been realized,
the claimants shall be entitled to interest on that part of compensation @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the amount was paid
and the liability to pay compensation shall be of respondents No.1 to 3
jointly and severally. However, the primarily liability shall be of
respondent No.3-Insurance Company to satisfy the award.
43. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this judgment
to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of direction issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others,
decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the
directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
FAO-2184-2002, FAO-2185-2002, FAO-2186-2002 &
FAO-2189-2002
21 -
-
44. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
45. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
07.09.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.09.11 17:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment