United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Santra Devi And Others

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(106) XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M)
(In FAO-74-2001)
Reserved on:- 16/10/2026
Pronounced on : 13.11.2026
Uploaded on : 13.11.2026
Smt. Santra Devi and others ...Cross-objectors
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate
for the cross-objectors/claimants.
Mr. Sumit Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
*
Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.
1. The appellant-insurance company ("the insurer") has filed this
appeal against the award dated 09.10.2000 passed by the ld. Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar ("the ld. Tribunal"). The ld. Tribunal
₹
granted compensation of 3,45,600/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of the petition till realisation, to Smt. Santra Devi and
her five children ("the claimants"), on account of the death of Kartar Singh
in a motor accident that took place on 28.08.1996. The driver, the owner
and the insurer were held jointly and severally liable. The claimants have
also filed cross-objections (XOBJ-213-2019) seeking enhancement of the
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
2
compensation. Both arise out of the same award and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
2. F or the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as ‘the
claimants’ and ‘the insurer’, as they were before the learned Tribunal.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claim petition was
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) by Smt.
Santra Devi, the widow of Kartar Singh, and her five minor children, claiming
compensation of ₹8,00,000/-. It was pleaded that Kartar Singh aged about 36
years, a resident of village Kablana, Tehsil Jhajjar, was serving in the Indian
Army and was the only earning member of the family. On 28.08.1996 at about
12.30 p.m., he and his brother Ram Kumar were going from Kablana to Jhajjar
on separate bicycles, Kartar Singh being ahead. Near Beed Sunar Mor,
truck/tanker No. GJ-6-T-4108, driven by respondent No. 2 (Kuldeep Singh)
rashly and negligently, came from behind and struck the bicycle of Kartar Singh,
who was on the kacha portion on his correct left side. He died at the spot. Ram
Kumar lodged the FIR. The owner of the vehicle was Ranjit Singh (respondent
No. 1 before the ld. Tribunal) and the vehicle was insured with the appellant
(respondent No. 3 before the ld. Tribunal).
4. Upon notice, respondents No. 1 (the owner) and No. 3 (the insurer)
contested the petition by filing written statements, whereas respondent No. 2 (the
driver) was proceeded against ex parte on 15.05.1998. The owner denied rash
and negligent driving, pleading that the deceased had himself taken a sudden turn
without caring for the traffic, and further pleaded that the deceased was aged 45
years and was earning only ₹3,000/- per month. The insurer pleaded that the
accident was not caused by rash and negligent driving and that it was not liable
as the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. No replication was filed.
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
3
5. On the pleadings, the ld. Tribunal framed four issues, relating to
rash and negligent driving, quantum of compensation, validity of the driving
licence of respondent No. 2, and relief. Upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, the ld. Tribunal held that the death of
Kartar Singh was caused by the rash and negligent driving of tanker No. GJ-6-T-
4108 by respondent No. 2. The insurer's plea of an invalid driving licence was
rejected, relying on Sukhdev v. Bhagwati Devi and others , 1996 ACJ 1292, on
the ground that the owner could not be expected to verify the licence in detail
from the Licensing Authority and that no wilful breach of the policy conditions
by the insured was established. As regards quantum, the ld. Tribunal took the
monthly income of the deceased at ₹3,531/-, deducted one-third towards personal
and living expenses, assessed the monthly dependency at about ₹2,400/-
(₹28,800/- per annum), took the age of the deceased as 38 years and applied the
multiplier of 12, thereby determining the compensation at ₹3,45,600/-, with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The owner, the driver and the insurer were held jointly and severally liable to
satisfy the award, with ₹40,000/- each apportioned to claimants No. 2 to 6 and
the remaining amount to claimant No. 1, to be kept in fixed deposit in a
nationalised bank. Aggrieved by the award dated 09.10.2000, the insurer has
preferred the present appeal, whereas the claimants have filed cross-objections
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the ld. Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, on the date fixed i.e.
16.10.2026, did not contest the appeal, as recorded in the order sheet of that
date, and no argument has been advanced in support of the grounds taken in the
memorandum of appeal.
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
4
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants-cross-
objectors contends that the ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation
payable on account of the death of Kartar Singh. It is submitted that the
deceased, being an Army personnel, was earning ₹6,000/- per month, whereas his
income was assessed at ₹3,531/- per month on the basis of the Army pay records.
It is further contended that the ld. Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards
personal and living expenses instead of 1/6th, considering the number of
dependants left behind by the deceased, and applied an inadequate multiplier of
12 despite the deceased being 38 years of age. Learned counsel further submits
that the ld. Tribunal failed to take into consideration future prospects and did not
award adequate compensation under the conventional heads, including loss of
consortium to the widow, loss of love and affection to the minor children,
transportation expenses and pain and suffering. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
compensation awarded by the ld. Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
8. No argument has been advanced on behalf of the insurer in
opposition to the cross-objections.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the claimants and have perused the
record, including that of the learned Tribunal, with his able assistance.
10. In view of the fact that the appellant-insurer has not contested the
appeal and no argument has been advanced in support of the grounds taken in the
memorandum of appeal, FAO-74-2001 is dismissed as not pressed. The findings
of the learned Tribunal on the issues relating to rash and negligent driving and
the validity of the driving licence of respondent No. 2 are left undisturbed.
11. However, the cross-objections bearing XOBJ-213-2019 filed by the
claimants stand on a separate footing.The appeal having not been pressed, the
cross-objections, therefore, survive and are being decided on merits. Even though
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
5
no argument has been advanced on behalf of the insurer, this Court has
independently examined the evidence on record.
12. The principal challenge in the cross-objections filed by the
claimants is to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
The compensation has to be determined as just and reasonable, in accordance
with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the outset, the
claimants contend that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at
₹6,000/- per month. However, the official Army record (Ex.PA and Ex.PB),
proved by PW3 Hargian Singh, Ex-Subedar Major, establishes his monthly pay
at ₹3,531/-. The oral assertion of PW1 Smt. Santra Devi (claimant No. 1)
regarding higher earnings, being unsupported by any documentary evidence,
cannot displace the official pay record. The monthly income of ₹3,531/- assessed
by the ld. Tribunal is therefore maintained.
13. Next, as regards the age of the deceased, the post-mortem report
(mark P1), which the ld. Tribunal accepted, records it as 38 years. The same is
taken as correct, no evidence having been led in support of the age of 36 years
pleaded in the claim petition or of 45 years pleaded by the owner. Since the
deceased was a Naik in the Indian Army, in permanent employment, and below
40 years of age, he was entitled to an addition of 50% towards future prospects in
terms of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC
680 . However, the ld. Tribunal did not add any amount towards future prospects.
Therefore, 50% of ₹3,531/-, i.e. ₹1,765.50 (₹3,531 × 50%), is now added to the
monthly income. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased with future
prospects comes to ₹5,296.50 (₹3,531 + ₹1,765.50). Accordingly, his annual
income works out to ₹63,558/- (₹5,296.50 × 12).
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
6
14. As regards the deduction towards personal and living expenses, the
deceased left behind six dependants, comprising his widow and five children. In
view of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121, a
deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses is appropriate. The ld.
Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd, while the claimants' plea for a deduction of
1/6th is also not sustainable. After deducting ₹15,889.50 (₹63,558 ÷ 4), the
annual dependency comes to ₹47,668.50 (₹63,558 − ₹15,889.50). Further, the
deceased being 38 years of age, which falls in the group of 36 to 40 years, the
appropriate multiplier in terms of Sarla Verma (supra) is 15, and not 12 as
applied by the ld. Tribunal without any reason. Applying it, the loss of
dependency works out to ₹7,15,028/- (₹47,668.50 × 15 = ₹7,15,027.50, rounded
off).
15. Lastly, the ld. Tribunal did not award any compensation under the
conventional heads. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) fixed the
amounts payable towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium
at ₹15,000/-, ₹15,000/- and ₹40,000/- respectively, and directed that these figures
be enhanced by 10% every three years. Applying the said escalation, the amounts
stand at ₹18,150/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses (₹15,000 + 10% =
₹16,500; + 10% = ₹18,150), and at ₹48,400/- for consortium (₹40,000 + 10% =
₹44,000; + 10% = ₹48,400).
16. Further, in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130, it was held that consortium is payable not only to the
spouse but also, as parental consortium, to the children, each claimant being
separately entitled. The widow (claimant No. 1) and the five children (claimants
No. 2 to 6), who were minors when their father died, are accordingly each
entitled to ₹48,400/-, i.e. ₹2,90,400/- in all (₹48,400 × 6).
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
7
17. A separate award for loss of love and affection is not warranted, as
it is covered by consortium. Pain and suffering is also not payable, the death
having been instantaneous. No amount is payable towards transportation charges,
the same not having been proved. Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated
as follows:
Sr. Head Amount (₹)
1 Monthly income (Ex.PB) 3,531
2 Add: future prospects @ 50% 1,765.50 (3,531 × 50%)
3 Monthly income with future prospects 5,296.50 (3,531 + 1,765.50)
4 Annual income 63,558 (5,296.50 × 12)
th
5 Less: personal expenses @ 1/4 15,889.50 (63,558 ÷ 4)
6 Annual dependency 47,668.50 (63,558 − 15,889.50)
7,15,028 (47,668.50 × 15 = 7,15,027.50,
7 Loss of dependency
rounded off)
8 Loss of estate 18,150
9 Funeral expenses 18,150
Loss of consortium (widow and five
10 2,90,400 (48,400 × 6)
children)
10,41,728 (7,15,028 + 18,150 + 18,150 +
Total compensation
2,90,400)
Less: awarded by the ld. Tribunal 3,45,600
Enhancement 6,96,128 (10,41,728 − 3,45,600)
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, FAO-74-2001 filed by the
insurer is dismissed as not pressed. The cross-objections are allowed. The
compensation is enhanced from ₹3,45,600/- to ₹10,41,728/-, i.e. by ₹6,96,128/-,
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date
of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
19. The liability of the insurer, the owner and the driver to satisfy the
award, as enhanced, shall remain joint and several. The remaining terms of the
award shall stand affirmed, subject to the aforesaid modification.
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJ-213-2019 (O&M) in
FAO-74-2001
8
20. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of. The record of the ld. Tribunal be sent back. A copy of this
judgment be placed on the file of XOBJ-213-2019.
November 13, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
KANCHAN
2026.11.13 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document