Jaspaul Kaur And Ors vs Gurpreet Singh And Ors

1

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)

JASPAL KAUR AND OTHERS …Appe llants
Vs
GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 10.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 11.11.2026
website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
Full
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued by: Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate
for respondent No.6-National Insurance Co. Ltd.

(Notice was issued only to respondent No.6 vide order dated 05.12.2018)


HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), the appellants-claimants seek
enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Tribunal’), whereby compensation of Rs.37,80,040/- along with interest at the rate
of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was awarded on
account of the death of Bachan Singh. The appellants seek enhancement of
compensation to Rs.70,00,000/- along with interest.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 26.11.2015, at about
4.30 a.m., Bachan Singh, who was serving as a Head Constable in the Punjab
Police, was travelling in Indica Car bearing registration No.PB-03-Z-2577 along
with his wife and other relatives on the Ferozepur-Muktsar road. When at about
6.30/7.00 a.m., the car reached the place of occurrence, a PUNBUS bus bearing
registration No.PB-03-AF-6836, being driven by respondent No.1-Gurpreet Singh
at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, while overtaking a four-
wheeler, came onto the wrong side of the road and struck against the car. As a
result of the accident, Bachan Singh and two other occupants died at the spot,
whereas another occupant succumbed to the injuries subsequently. In this regard,
FIR No.127 dated 26.11.2015 was registered at Police Station Sadar Muktsar. The
appellants, being the widow, two sons, daughter and mother of the deceased, filed
a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation of
Rs.70,00,000/-.
3. The claim petition was contested by respondents No.2 to 5,
respondent No.5(a), being the registered owner, and respondent No.6, the insurer.
Respondent No.1-driver was proceeded against ex parte. On the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the requisite issues. In support
of their claim, the appellants examined PW1-Kamalpreet Kaur, PW2-Harjinder
Singh, an injured eye-witness, and PW3-HC Harnek Singh, who proved the salary
certificate (Ex.PW3/A). The respondents, on the other hand, examined RW1-HC
Harnek Singh and RW2-HC Rakesh Jolly and also tendered documentary
evidence, including the insurance policy.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
4. Upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal held
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
It further held that the driving licence of respondent No.1 was valid and decided
the remaining issues against the respondents. The aforesaid findings have not been
assailed by the respondents either by filing an appeal or by way of cross-objections
and, accordingly, have attained finality. While determining the compensation, the
Tribunal took the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.46,000/-, after rounding off
the amount of Rs.46,010/- reflected in the salary certificate. After deducting one-
third towards personal and living expenses, the monthly dependency was assessed
at Rs.30,667/- and the annual dependency at Rs.3,68,004/-. Applying a multiplier
of 10, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.36,80,040/-. A further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded under the conventional heads, and the total
compensation was determined at Rs.37,80,040/-. No addition was made towards
future prospects.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal was inadequate and contrary to the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It was submitted that the learned
Tribunal erred in not making any addition towards future prospects, despite the
deceased being in permanent Government service. He further contended that
keeping in view the five dependants left behind by the deceased, the deduction
towards personal expenses ought to have been one-fourth instead of one-third. The
multiplier of 10 applied by the learned Tribunal was also stated to be erroneous, as
the appropriate multiplier, having regard to the age of the deceased, shows to be
13. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
conventional heads was inadequate and that the rate of interest also deserved
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 supported the
impugned award and submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the
compensation and that no ground for interference was made out.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Since the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence,
the status of the respondents and the liability of the insurer have attained finality,
the controversy in the present appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation.
The rival submissions are considered hereinafter.
9. In the case in hand, PW3-HC Harnek Singh, from the office of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, proved the salary certificate
(Ex.PW3/A), which reflects the monthly salary of the deceased for November 2015
as Rs.46,010/-. The Tribunal rightly rounded off the said amount to Rs.46,000/-. In
the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid finding by the respondents, the same
is maintained. It is not in dispute that the deceased was employed on a permanent
post in the Punjab Police. However, the Tribunal did not make any addition
towards future prospects. The issue stands settled by the Constitution Bench
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) , wherein it has
been held that, in the case of a deceased having a permanent job, an addition of
30% of the established income is to be made towards future prospects where the
deceased was between 40 and 50 years of age, whereas it should be 15% where the
deceased was between 50 and 60 years of age. In the present case, the learned
Tribunal recorded the age of the deceased as about 50 years, whereas the claim
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
petition mentions his age as 49 years. In view of the age reflected in the claim
petition and the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the deceased is taken to be 50
years of age for the purpose of computation. Accordingly, the appellants are
entitled to an addition of 30% towards future prospects. Thus, an amount of
Rs.13,800/- is required to be added to the monthly income of Rs.46,000/-, bringing
the same to Rs.59,800/- per month.
9.1 Further, the learned Tribunal deducted one-third of the income of the
deceased towards personal and living expenses. However, in terms of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , as affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra) , where the
number of dependent family members is between four and six, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses is to be one-fourth. In the present case, the
learned Tribunal treated all five appellants, namely, the widow, three children and
mother of the deceased, as dependants. The said finding has not been challenged
by the respondents. Consequently, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses is required to be reduced from one-third to one-fourth.
9.2 Additionally, the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10, whereas
the appellants contend that the appropriate multiplier is 13. As held in Sarla
Verma (supra) , the multiplier is to be determined with reference to the age of the
deceased. For the age group of 46 to 50 years, the applicable multiplier is 13,
whereas for the age group of 51 to 55 years, it is 11. Since the deceased was about
50 years of age, the applicable multiplier is 13. The multiplier of 10 applied by the
Tribunal is, therefore, substituted by a multiplier of 13.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
9.3 As regards the conventional heads, in Pranay Sethi (supra) , and
further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur,” 2020 (11) SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
compensation under conventional heads is to be awarded in a standardized manner.
The appellants-claimants are thus entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs. 18,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants-claimants are further
entitled to Rs. 48,000/- each towards loss of consortium.
10. Consequently , the compensation payable to the claimants is liable to
be re-calculated and is accordingly determined as under:
S.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.)
1. Annual Income (Rs. 46,000 x 12) 5,52,000/-
2. 30% addition towards future prospects 1,65,600/-
3. Total Income 7,17,600/-
4. Deduction towards personal expenses at 1/4th 1,79,400/-
5. Net Income 5,38,200/-
6. Loss of Dependency (Multiplier of 13) (Rs.
69,96,600/-
5,38,200 x 13)
7. Loss of Estate 18,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses 18,000/-
9. Loss of Consortium (Rs. 48,000 x 5) 2,40,000/-
Total Compensation 72,72,600/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal 37,80,040/-
Enhanced Compensation 34,92,560/-

Thus, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.72,72,600/-
as against Rs.37,80,040/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, resulting in an
enhancement of Rs.34,92,560/-.
11. The grant of interest @ 8% per annum is not equitable and just in
view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7

FAO No.4707 of 2018 (O&M)
and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as
(2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and
others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 , thus,
the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded
to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In
case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable
thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from
today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to
the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
12. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned award
dated 25.01.2018 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellants-claimants
shall be entitled to the enhanced compensation in the same proportion and shares
as determined by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award. The apportionment
of compensation, as ordered by the learned Tribunal, shall accordingly remain
unchanged.
13. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 11, 2026 JUDGE
Atik

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.11 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document