United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Vijay Kumar @ Vijaie Kumar And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*
Date of decision: 31.10.2026

(140) FAO-3122-2025 (O&M)
United India Insurance Company Limited
through its Assistant Manager (Legal)
....Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Kumar @ Vijaie Kumar and others
....Respondents
(140.1) FAO-449-2025 (O&M)
Vijay Kumar @ Vijaie Kumar and others
…Petitioners
Versus
Gopal and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-3122-2025) and
for respondent No.3/Insurance Company (in FAO-449-2025).
Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for
claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 (in FAO-3122-2025)
and for appellants (in FAO-449-2025).
Ms. Ripandeep Kaur, Advocate
for respondents No.5 and 6 (in FAO-3122-2025) and
for respondents No.1 and 2 (in FAO-449-2025).
*
HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of two appeals, i.e. FAO No 449 s.
and 3122 of 2025 , as both arise out of the same award dated 24.10.2024
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MACP/13/2024.
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -2-
1.1 The FAO No. 449 of 2025 has been preferred by the
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas
FAO No. 3122 of 2025 has been preferred by United India Insurance
Company Limited challenging the aforesaid award. For the sake of
convenience, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 449 of 2025 .
2. Briefly, the present appellants/claimants filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘the 1988 Act’)
seeking compensation on account of the death of Sh. Gulab in a motor
vehicular accident.
2.1 The aforesaid claim petition was filed on the plea that on
31.08.2023, Gulab (since deceased) along with Aayush was returning to
Patiala in a car bearing registration No. PB-11CR-0900, which was being
driven by Aayush. At about 08:15 PM, when they reached near the Flyover,
G.T. Road (Sirhind–Patiala Road) near Mukut Public School, Rajpura, a car
bearing registration No. PB-11BU-7600 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
offending vehicle’), driven by one Sh. Gopal son of Mohan Lal, in a rash
and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against the car of the
deceased; due to which, the car of deceased went towards right-hand side of
the road and struck against a canter bearing registration No. UP-52T-3627.
Both Aayush and Gulab died at the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle
ran from the spot after causing the accident. The deceased were taken to A.P.
Jain Civil Hospital, Rajpura and case FIR No. 273 dated 01.09.2023
regarding the accident was registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District
Patiala.
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -3-
2.2 In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the claimants
sought compensation under Section 166 of the 1988 Act.
3. Upon notice, the driver of the offending vehicle namely Gopal
(respondent No.1 in the claim petition) opposed the claim by filing his
written statement by pleading that no accident had taken place and that a
false case had been registered against him. He denied the averments of the
claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4. Respondent No. 2 in the claim petition namely Baljit Singh
(owner of the offending vehicle) also filed written statement on similar lines
as that of respondent No. 1 – Gopal and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the other hand respondent No. 3 in the claim petition
(United India Insurance Company Limited) filed its separate written
statement raising preliminary objections, that the driver(s) of the offending
vehicle as well as the car in which the deceased was travelling, were not
holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident; that
the offending vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate, pollution
certificate, and registration certificate and also that the claim petition was
time-barred. On merits, all the averments in the claim petition were denied
and prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed
the following issues:-
“1. Whether Gulab son of Vijay Kumar died in the motor
vehicular accident which took place on account of rash
and negligent driving of vehicle no. PB-11BU-7600 by
respondent no. 1? OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so
to what extent and from whom? OPP
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -4-
3. Whether respondent no. 1 was not holding a legal and
valid driving licence at the time of the accident? If so, its
effect? OPR-3
4. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied without
valid registration certificate, fitness certificate etc.?
OPR-3
5. Whether the petition is time barred? OPR-3
6. Relief.”
6.1 Subsequently, the learned Tribunal framed an additional issue
namely “5-A. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
OPR-3”.
7. The parties led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues.
8. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the matter,
returned a finding under issue No. 1 that the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 -
Gopal wherein Gulab sustained injuries which proved fatal for him.
8.1 Further under issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal held that all the
claimants as well as proforma respondent No. 4 in the claim petition
i.e. Neetu (wife of Sh. Gulab), were entitled to receive compensation.
9. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the matter,
awarded Rs.37,05,800/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest, and
respondents No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition were held jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation.
10. In the aforementioned circumstances, the aforesaid two appeals
have been filed before this Court.
11. The claimants have filed the appeal (FAO-449-2025) seeking
enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance Company has filed the
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -5-
appeal (FAO-3122-2025) , on the plea that the claim petition has been filed
by the claimants in connivance with the driver/owner of the offending
vehicle as well as the eye-witness namely Sahil Khanna, who is a planted
witness and had not witnessed the accident. Another ground has been taken
that the amount awarded is on the higher side.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the paperbook with their able assistance.
13. The manner of accident is being disputed by the Insurance
Company primarily on the plea that the eye-witness of the accident namely
Sahil Khanna, is a planted witness, as he had not witnessed the accident.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to
cross-examination of Sh. Sahil Khanna where he stated that that he was
driving the motorcycle at the speed of 40-50 km/h and Ayush was ahead of
him by half a kilometer. It is sought to be contended that Sh. Sahil Khanna
could not have witnessed the accident from a distance of half a kilometer
and therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon.
14. I have considered the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of
the insurance company.
14.1 The manner of accident, as recorded in the FIR, is that at about
08:15/08:30 PM, one Xcent car bearing registration No. PB-11BU-7600
came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and struck the side against
the car bearing registration No. PB-11-CR-0900 (ill-fated vehicle); and on
account of the said impact, the ill-fated vehicle went towards the right-hand
side and struck against the canter bearing registration No. UP-52T-3627.
Sh. Sahil Khanna, the eye-witness to the accident was subjected to
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -6-
cross-examination, wherein also he maintained the same stand as recorded in
the FIR.
14.2 As regards the plea of the insurance company that Sh. Sahil
Khanna could not have witnessed the accident from half a kilometer away,
suffice it to say that half a kilometer (i.e. 500 meters) is not that far a
distance that one cannot see the accident, especially when Sh. Sahil Khanna
is stated to have been following the ill-fated car on his motorcycle at the
speed of 40/50 km/h. In fact a person travelling at 50 km per hour speed
would cover 500 meters in about 36 seconds. Therefore, at the time of
impact the eye-witness (Sahil Khanna) would have reached the accident site
within seconds.
14.3 Accordingly, the aforesaid contention of the Insurance
Company is found to be without any substance and the same is accordingly
rejected.
15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants are
seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the plea of the Insurance
Company is that the compensation has been awarded on a higher side.
15.1 The learned Tribunal, while assessing the compensation of the
deceased- Gulab, took note of the Income Tax Return (Exhibit C-10) of
Sh. Gulab and determined his income as Rs.2,16,000/- per annum. The
Tribunal further accepted the age of the deceased-Gulab, as 33 years and 7
months at the time of his death, and applied a multiplier of 16 besides
granting 40% future prospects. The learned Tribunal took note of the fact
that there are 5 claimants, accordingly, a deduction of 1/4th was made
towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal further
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -7-
granted amounts under the conventional heads namely Rs.16,500/- on
account of loss of estate, Rs.44,000/- on account of loss of consortium, and
Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses. In this manner, the learned Tribunal
determined the compensation as under:-
Sr.No. Head Amount
1 Annual Income of the
deceased
2,16,000/-
2 Annual Income of the
deceased after adding
future prospects @
40%
2,16,000+86,400 = 3,02,400/-
3 Dependency of the
claimants after
deducting 1/4th
towards personal and
living expenses of the
deceased
3,02,400-75,600=2,26,800/-
4 Compensation by
applying the multiplier
of 16
2,26,800 x 16=36,28,800/-
5 Funeral expenses 16,500/-
6 Loss of estate 16,500/-
7 Consortium 44,000/-
Total 37,05,800/-
16. The issue Nos.3,4 and 5 were decided by the learned Tribunal
against the Insurance Company.
17. As regards issue No.5-A, the learned Tribunal held that the non-
joinder of the owner, driver and insurer of the ill-fated vehicle bearing
registration No. PB-11CR-0900 as well as tanker bearing registration No.
UP-52T-3627, were not fatal to the claimants.
18. The learned Tribunal further granted interest @ 7.5% per
annum on the aforesaid compensation.
19 Here it would be apposite to refer to a few judicial
pronouncements.
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -8-
19.1 In “National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay
Sethi and Ors.”, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 , the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well
advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a
different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a
judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate
Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than
what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should
be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual
salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be
the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of
40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -9-
be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we
have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table
in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years…”
19.2 Now in “Smt. Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corp.”,
2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 ; Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down as under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra 4, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent
decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (⅓rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (¼th) where the number of dependent family members is
4 to 6, and one-fifth ( ⅕ th) where the number of dependent
family members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -10-
not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
19.3 In “Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and
another”, 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 660 , the three-Judge Bench, reproduced
paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of Sarla Verma and approved the same by stating
thus:-
"41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate
deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in
mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves
or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not
form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively
on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of
personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the
number of dependent members in the family and the personal
living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to
the number of dependants.
42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla
Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses
in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -11-
case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding
paragraph is made out."
19.4 In “Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram &
Ors.”, 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333 ; Hon'ble Apex Court interpreted
"consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal
consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With
respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased
spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature
death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in
the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of
a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their
lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the
family unit.
19.5 In “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur”, 2020(3) RCR (Civil) 75 ; Hon'ble Supreme Court had
observed as under:-
“At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide
uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of
love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have
been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and
loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -12-
Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads
under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal
consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium.
Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of
consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head…”
20. When the case in hand is considered in the light of the above
noticed judicial pronouncements, it is observed that the learned Tribunal has
rightly assessed the annual income of deceased-Gulab as Rs. 2,16,000/- per
annum, on the basis of his income-tax return. Further, keeping in view the
age of deceased-Gulab as 33 years – 7 months, learned Tribunal was
justified in granting 40 % future prospects and also applying multiplier of
th
16. Learned Tribunal has also rightly deducted 1/4 amount towards
personal expenses of the deceased.
20.1 However, it is observed that in terms of judgment rendered in
case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting
the appropriate amount under the conventional heads. The judgment in case
of Pranay Sethi (supra) , was rendered on 31.10.2017 and it was observed
therein that the amount under the ‘ conventional heads ’ is to be increased by
10% every three years.
20.2 In the present case, since the accident occurred on 31.08.2023
i.e. after about 6 years from the date of decision in case of Pranay Sethi
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -13-
(supra) , therefore, in my considered view, the claimants would be entitled to
Rs. 18,150/- on account of loss of estate and Rs. 18,150/- on account of
funeral expenses. Further, each of the five claimants are entitled to Rs.
48,400/- on account of consortium i.e. Rs. 48,400 X 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/-.
20.3 Accordingly, the compensation now payable to the claimants, is
as under:-
Sr.No. Head Amount awarded
Enhanced
Compensation
1 Annual Income of the
deceased
by Tribunal
2,16,000/- 2,16,000/-
2 Annual Income of the
deceased after adding
future prospects @ 40%
2,16,000+86,400 =
2,16,000+86,400 =
3,02,400/-
3,02,400/-
3 Dependency of the
claimants after deducting
1/4th towards personal
and living expenses of the
deceased
3,02,400-
75,600=2,26,800/-
3,02,400-
75,600=2,26,800/-
4 Compensation by
applying the multiplier of
16
2,26,800 x
16=36,28,800/-
2,26,800 x 16=36,28,800/-
5 Funeral expenses 16,500/- 18,150/-
6 Loss of estate 16,500/- 18150/-
7 Consortium 44,000/- Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rs. 48,400/-
each to all 5 dependents)
Total 37,05,800/- Rs.39,07,100/-
21. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to the differential
amount i.e. Rs.39,07,100 – Rs.37,05,800 = Rs. 2,01,300/-, which shall also
carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
22. Keeping in view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company [FAO-3122-2025 (O&M)] as well as the appeal filed by
the claimants [FAO-449-2025 (O&M)] are disposed of by modifying the
award passed by the learned Tribunal to the extent indicated above.
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

FAO-3122-2025 (O&M) along with
FAO-449-2025 (O&M) -14-
23. Let the aforesaid differential amount, along with interest be
paid to the claimants; within a period of six weeks from today.
24. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
25. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.
(HARSH BUNGER)
31.10.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.10.31 18:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh