Harpreet Kaur and Ors. Vs Sonu Kumar Singh

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 18.08.2020 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.06.2018.

¶12

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

¶13

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

¶14

compensation :

¶15

Sr.No.	Heads	Compen	sation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹9,700/-
2	Future Prospects - 40%	₹13,580/-	[₹9,700 + ₹3,880]
3	Deduction -1/4^th	₹10,185/-	[₹13,580-₹3,395]
4	Annual Income	₹1,22,220/-	[₹10,185 x 12]
5	Multiplier - 16	₹19,55,520/-	[₹1,22,220 x 16]

¶16

YOGESH SHARMA 2025.12.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

6	Loss of estate	₹15,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹15,000/-
8	Loss of consortium	₹40,000/-
	Total Compensation	₹20,25,520/-
	Interest	9%

¶18

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that he does not challenge the income, deduction, addition of future prospects and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] .

¶19

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, addition of future prospects, deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma

¶22

YOGESH SHARMA 2025.12.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimants (widow, two children and mother of the deceased) would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss

¶24

of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

¶25

Sr.No.	Heads	Compe	nsation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹9,700/-
2	Annual Income	₹1,16,400/-	[₹9,700 x 12]
3	Deduction -1/4^th	₹87,300/-	[₹1,16,400-₹29,100]
4	Future Prospects - 40%	₹1,22,220/-	[₹87,300 + ₹34,920]
5	Multiplier - 16	₹19,55,520/-	[₹1,22,220 x 16]
6	Loss of estate	₹18,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹18,000/-
8	Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 2] (ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 1] (iii) Spousal's	₹96,000/- ₹48,000/- ₹48,000/- (Total₹1,92,0	00/-)
	Total Compensation	₹21,83,520/-

¶26

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

¶27

In view of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567] , after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the direction of the Tribunal and the share of the minor claimants shall be kept in fixed deposits by the Bank concerned. The particulars of the bank account(s)

¶28

YOGESH SHARMA 2025.12.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter alongwith up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

¶30

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶31

23.12.2025 Yogesh Sharma

¶32

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶33

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶34

YOGESH SHARMA 2025.12.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Harpreet Kaur and Ors. v. Sonu Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Kaur and Ors. v. Sonu Kumar Singh

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

Renu Bala and Others Vs Savita Thaper and Another

Jugender Kumar Vs Rakesh Chandila

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Paramjit Singh @ Pamma

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Devi and Others

Rekha Devi and Others Vs Vinod Kumar and Others

Palwinder Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh and Other