Kamlesh And Ors vs Sunder Singh And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4605 of 2019(O&M)
RESERVED ON: 04.11.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 13.11.2026
UPLOADED ON: 13.11.2026
Kamlesh and others …..Appellants
VERSUS
Sunder Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Present: Mr. Akshat Aggarwal, Advocate and
Ms. Preeti Jha, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent
No.3-Insurance Company.
*
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.(Oral)
1 . The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants
against the award dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2016, Balraj was
proceeding on motor-cycle No.HR-12J-4284 to a temple at Village Rewari
Khera for a Bhandara (religious meal). The brother of Balraj namely
Ashok was following him on a separate motor-cycle. At about 8.00 AM,
when they reached near Vishwakarma Kiln, Nigana Road, an Eicher canter
No.HR-66-3996 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘offending vehicle’)
came from Village Nigana at a high speed, rashly and negligently took a
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
sharp cut, causing the motor-cycle of Balraj to hit the rear side of the
offending vehicle. Due to the accident, Balraj fell down and sustained
injuries. Balraj was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by his brother – Ashok from
where he was referred to Oscar Hospital, but unfortunately he succumbed
to his injuries during the course of treatment. An FIR No.622 dated
12.09.2016 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’) at Police Station
Kalanaur on the statement of Ashok (brother of deceased - Balraj). At the
time of death of Balraj, he was aged about 33 years and was working for
Pahalwan Dairy besides selling milk and doing agricultural work and was
earning Rs.20,000/-. As the accident was caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of Sunder Singh while driving the offending vehicle, the
widow, minor children and parents of Balraj (since deceased) filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakhs along with interest @ 24%
per annum from the date of accident till realization on account of death of
Balraj in a motor vehicular accident.
3. Sunder Singh - driver and Raj Kumar -owner of the offending
vehicle filed a joint written statement. It was a case of the driver and
owner that no such accident involving Sunder Singh – driver or the
offending vehicle had ever taken place. It was also the case of the driver
and owner of the offending vehicle that Sunder Singh - driver was holding
a legally valid driving licence.
4. Insurance Company filed a separate written statement. It was
a case of the Insurance Company that Balraj (since deceased) himself was
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -3-
responsible for the accident in question. It was also the case of the
Insurance Company that Sunder Singh - driver of the offending vehicle
was not holding a legally valid driving licence at time of accident and the
number of the offending vehicle had been wrongly mentioned in the claim
petition. It was also the case of the Insurance Company that Sunder Singh -
driver of the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in order to extract
compensation.
5. The Tribunal decided the claim petition in favour of the
appellants/claimants vide award dated 07.03.2019. A perusal of the award
dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Tribunal would show that claimants were
held entitled for grant of compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- along with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition
till realization. As per the award dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Tribunal,
out of the awarded amount of compensation, Rs.9,82,800/- was ordered to
be given to claimant No.1 – widow in cash, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
each was ordered to be kept in FDR in a bank till claimants No.2 and 3
(minor children) attain the age of majority and Rs.1,50,000/- each was
ordered to be given in cash to claimants No.4 and 5 i.e. father and mother
of Balraj (since deceased). The driver, owner and Insurance Company of
the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. A perusal of the award dated 07.03.2019 passed by the
Tribunal would show that income of the deceased was assessed as
Rs.8000/- per month. A perusal of the award dated 07.03.2019 passed by
the Tribunal would further show that only Rs.40,000/- has been awarded
under the head of loss of consortium.
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -4-
6. Aggrieved against the abovesaid award dated 07.03.2019
passed by the Tribunal, appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants/claimants submits that a perusal of the award dated 07.03.2019
passed by the Tribunal would show that the statement given by PW-3 Hari
Krishan, owner of the Pehalwan Dairy would show that Balraj (since
deceased) was getting a salary of Rs.19,500/- per month, as such, the
abovesaid amount should be taken as the income of Balraj (since
deceased). Learned counsel further submits that all the
appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss
of consortium.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-
Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence led by the
appellants/claimants to show that PW-3 Hari Krishan was the owner of
Pehalwan Dairy. Learned counsel further submits that a perusal of the
cross-examination of PW-3 Hari Krishan would show that he has nowhere
stated in his cross-examination that Balraj (since deceased) was getting a
salary of Rs.19,500/-, as such, income of Balraj (since deceased) cannot be
taken as Rs.19,500/- per month. Learned counsel also submits that as no
documentary evidence was led by the appellants/claimants to show that
income of Balraj (since deceased) was Rs.19,500/- per month, as such, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed income of Balraj (since deceased) as
Rs.8,000/- per month.
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -5-
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties, perused the paper-book and have gone through evidence led by the
parties with their able assistance.
10. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants that income of the deceased has to be taken as
Rs.19,500/- taking into consideration the statement of PW-3 Hari Krishan
is concerned, it is not in dispute that no documentary evidence was led by
the appellants/claimants to show that Balraj (since deceased) was drawing
a salary of Rs.19,500/- per month. It is also not in dispute that no evidence
was led by the appellants/claimants to show that PW-3 Hari Krishan was
the owner of Pehalwan Dairy. In the cross-examination of PW-3 Hari
Krishan, he has nowhere mentioned as to what was the monthly income of
Balraj (since deceased). It is well settled law that if there is no
documentary evidence led by the appellants/claimants to prove
income/salary of the deceased, minimum wages fixed by the relevant State
at the time of accident in the case of unskilled worker/labourer has to be
taken into consideration for assessing the income of the deceased. Taking
into consideration the fact that there is no documentary evidence led by the
appellants/claimants with regard to income of Balraj (since deceased), the
statement of PW-3 Hari Krishan that Balraj (since deceased) was
employed in his dairy and was drawing Rs.19,500/- per month cannot be
accepted at face value without sufficient evidence i.e. bank account
statement, attendance register etc. Taking into consideration the nature of
work of Balraj (since deceased) i.e. specialized labour in dairy, the income
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -6-
of Balraj (since deceased) by applying guess work can safely be assessed
as Rs.12,000/- per month.
11. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants that all the appellants/claimants are entitled for grant
of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, it is
well settled law that all the family members of the deceased are entitled to
compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
others, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that family members of the deceased are entitled to compensation
under the head of loss of consortium. The relevant extract from the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation
is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of
Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which
encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and
'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. Rajesh and
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to
the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation
to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society,
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -7-
cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation."
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, affection, companionship and their role
in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about
the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a
child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss
of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased
child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.”
12. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the
judgment referred above, all the appellants/claimants are held entitled to
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -8-
compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of
consortium.
13 Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to
enhanced compensation re-assessed as hereunder:-
Assessment
Date of Accident 11.09.2016
Age of deceased 33 years
Occupation working in Pehalwan Dairy
Claimants Widow, children and parents of the deceased
1. Monthly income Rs.12,000/-
2. Annual Income Rs.1,44,000/-
(Rs.12000/- x12)
3. Addition for future prospects @ 40% Rs.2,01,600/-
Rs.1,44,000 + Rs.57,600/-
4. Deduction for personal and living
expenses (1/4)
Rs.2,01,600/- (-) Rs.50,400/-
Rs.1,51,200/-
5. Multiplier 16
6. Total loss of dependency Rs. 24,19,200/-
Rs.1,51,200/- x 16
7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
8. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
9. Loss of consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs.40,000/- x 5
10. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 16,82,800/-
11. Enhanced amount Rs.9,66,400/-
12. Final enhanced compensation Rs.26,49,200/-
14. In view of the above, the award dated 07.03.2019 passed by
the Tribunal is modified to an extent that appellants/claimants are held
entitled to final enhanced compensation of Rs.26,49,200/- along with
interest @ 7 % per annum (as awarded by the Tribunal) from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization.
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO No.4605 of 2019 (O&M) -9-
15. Respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and Insurance
Company are directed to deposit the final enhanced compensation jointly
and severally along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of passing of this judgment.
16. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the final enhanced
compensation along with interest, in the accounts of appellants/claimants
as apportioned by the Tribunal. The appellants/claimants are directed to
furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
17. The present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
NOVEMBER 13,2026 (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
‘D. Gulati’ JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : yes/no
Whether reportable : yes/no
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.11.13 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document