P&H HC Adds Rs 1.51L And Rs 3.65L To Compensation For Families Of Two Fatal Tractor-Crash Victims

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased persons’ income and the resulting loss of dependency required enhancement.

The court held

Both appeals were allowed.

It also directed

In FAO-476-2003, total compensation was enhanced to ₹4,10,300, an increase of ₹1,51,300.

In FAO-477-2003, total compensation was enhanced to ₹6,87,732, an increase of ₹3,65,732.

Enhanced compensation was payable with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, except that interest on conventional heads was payable from August 2017; apportionment and liability remained as determined in the award.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The appeals arose from a common award dated 10 December 2002 concerning two deaths in a motor-vehicle accident on 12 May 2000.

p. 2

In the first claim, the Tribunal awarded ₹2,59,000 to the two minor sons of Saroj Chopra, assessing dependency at ₹1,500 per month and applying a multiplier of 13.

pp. 2–3

In the second, it awarded ₹3,22,000 to Subhash Chand’s mother and two minor sons, assessing monthly income at ₹3,000 and dependency at ₹2,000.

pp. 5–6

The claimants appealed for enhancement, challenging the income assessment, multiplier, omission of future prospects and amounts under conventional heads.

p. 2

Negligence was not challenged.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased persons’ income and the resulting loss of dependency required enhancement.

pp. 3–4, 6–7

ii.2. Whether future prospects, the appropriate multiplier and deductions for personal expenses had been correctly applied.

pp. 4–5, 7

iii.3. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation under conventional heads, including funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium.

pp. 4–5, 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for addition of future prospects and compensation under conventional heads, and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, for selecting the multiplier by reference to the deceased’s age and determining deductions for personal expenses by reference to the number of dependants.

pp. 4–5, 7

It applied a multiplier of 13 for deceased persons aged 48 and 50, respectively; added future prospects of 25% for the 48-year-old deceased and 10% for the 50-year-old deceased; and deducted one-third for personal expenses in each claim.

pp. 4–5, 7

It also referred to the pending reference in Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919, permitting the claimants to seek any further amount under conventional heads if that reference were answered in their favour.

p. 5, 8

04Reasoning

For Saroj Chopra, the Court found no reliable evidence establishing the pleaded income of ₹30,000 per month: the witness did not state her income, and the tax return filed after her death showed interest income rather than earnings from partnership work.

p. 3

It therefore assessed her income at the skilled-worker minimum wage of ₹2,310 per month.

p. 3

For Subhash Chand, the partnership deed and tax documents supported business and agricultural income; the Court assessed his monthly income at ₹4,700, excluding amounts attributable to interest and identifying the relevant business and agricultural income.

pp. 6–7

Applying the age-based future-prospect additions, one-third deductions and multiplier of 13, the Court recalculated dependency and added compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium.

pp. 4–5, 7–8