Harcharan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pre s ent appeal has been preferred b y the parents of the deceased, Rajpal Singh ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who had died in a road accident which took place on 20.06.1 9 96, on account of rash and negligent dri v ing of Haryana Roadways bus b earing registration No. HR02-A-8860, c h allenging the impugned award dated 05.01.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chand i garh (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal’ ), vide which the appellants w ere found entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,56,000/-.

¶15

Sin c e the factum of the accident i s not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in t h e impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to h e rein for sake of brevity.

¶16

The Tribunal in the present case has awarded the following compensation:-

¶17

Mon thly Income	Rs. 3,000 /-	Rs.36,000/-
	per mont h	per annum
D eduction		1/3^rd

¶18

SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

FAO-2180-20 02 (O&M)	-2-
M ultiplier	14
TotalC a ompensation warded	Rs. 1,56,000/-

¶20

Lea r ned Counsel for the appellants - claimants does not challenge the income o f the deceased as assessed, ho w ever, the amounts awarded under the he a d of multiplier is stated to b e on the lower side. It was asserted that n o addition has been made to w ards future prospects which ought to be 4 0% in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Le a rned counsel for the appellan t s-claimants also asserts that since the age of the deceased was 24 years , multiplier of ‘18’ ought to have been ap p lied as per the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 770 . Also, the am o unts under conventional hea d s i.e loss of estate, funeral expenses, lo s s of consortium are not in consonance with National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nathu Ram alias Chuhu Ram & Ors., 2018 (18) SCC 1 30 and N. Jayasree & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd , 2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 6 42.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for res p ondent No.1 has vehemently argued that s u fficient amount has already be e n awarded as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of en h ancement.

¶22

In t h e present case, since no chal l enge has been made by the learned couns e l for the appellants-claimants t o the income of the deceased as assessed b y the Tribunal, the same is a c cordingly upheld. Since the

¶23

SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

FAO-2180-2002 (O&M) -3-

¶25

deceased was 24 years of age at the time o f accident, multiplier of ‘18’ would be app l icable instead of ‘14’ as per t h e law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t in case of Sarla Verma (supra) . The Tribunal has erred in not making a n y addition towards loss of fut u re prospects. In the present case since the deceased was 24 years of age, a n addition of 40% would be applicable as p er the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) . The Learned Tribunal initi a lly took the deduction as 1/3^rd by presuming deceased would be married la t er deduction of 2500 was ma d e from income to calculate loss of depen d ency. Keeping in view that the deceased was a bachelor and the number o f dependants are two, the dedu c tion ought to have been 1/2. The appella n ts-claimants shall also be e n titled to compensation of Rs.7,500/- to w ards funeral expenses, Rs.7,50 0 /- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- t o each of the appellants-claimants towards filial consortium.

¶26

Ac c ordingly, the re-worked co m pensation to which the

¶27

appellants-cla i mants are entitled to is as unde r :-

¶28

I ncome	Rs.3,000/- per month	Rs.3,000/- per month
Futur e Prospects	40% (Rs.3,000+12 00)	Rs.4,200/-
De duction	1/2 (Rs.4,200-210 0)	Rs.2,100/-
M ultiplier	18	18
Tot dep al loss of endency	2,100 x 12 x 18	Rs.4,53,600/-
Loss of Estate		Rs. 7,500/-
Funer al Expenses		Rs. 7,500/-
Loss cons claiman of parental ortium to t nos. 1&2	Rs. 15,000/-x 2	Rs. 30,000/-
TotalC award ompensation edinappeal		Rs.4,98,600/-
TotalC awar ompensation ded by the		Rs. 1,56,000/-

¶29

SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

FAO-2180-2002 (O&M) -4-

¶31

T ribunal
Enhanc com ed amount of pensation	Rs 4,98,000 (awarded in app Rs 1,56,000 (awarded byt Tribunal) /- eal) – /- he	Rs.3,42,600/-

¶32

The claim petition is accordingly a llowed in the above terms. The appellan t s-claimants shall also be entit l ed to interest at the rate of 7.5% per ann u m on enhanced compensation s o awarded from date of filing of claim pet i tion till realization. The apportionment and liability of respondents s hall be as per the award. Th e awarded amount shall be deposited wit h in six weeks from the date of t h is order.

¶33

In v iew of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. AIR 2025 SC 1713, after calculation of the enhanced amount the same be transferred by respondent No.1 in the b a nk account(s) of the appellants - claimants within a period of six weeks fro m today. The particulars of th e bank account(s) along with requisite documents in support thereof s hall be furnished by the appellants-cla i mants to respondent No.1 wi t hin a period of two weeks from today a n d needful shall be done by resp o ndent No.1 after verification thereof withi n a period of four weeks ther e after along with up-to-date interest.

¶34

(PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE

¶35

21.11.2025

¶36

Sunil Chander

¶37

Whet h er speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whet h er reportable : Yes/No

¶38

SUNIL CHANDER 2025.11.21 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harcharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harcharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs Sirsa City Bus Service Sirsa

Ms Sanjog Landbase LLP Vs Orchid Green Resident Welfare Association (Ogrwa) and Others

Jagsir Kumar Vs Kamaljit and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Mukesh and Others

Sidharth Gupta Vs Rajeev Sethi

Jhapsi Sahni Vs Bhanwar Lal Vishnoi and Anr.