Dismissed¶47

Jaswinder Kaur and Others v. Tejinder Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2025FAO/3802/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation enhancement appeal dismissed; family pension deductible from deceased pensioner's income for loss of dependency; parental consortium denied to adult and married children absent proven financial dependency; 50% personal-expense deduction indicated; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act; MACT Rupnagar; FAO-3802-2025(O&M); interest 7.5%; vehicle HP-12-E-5219; Vishavjit Singh v. Cholamandalam; ICICI Lombard v. Priya PS; Krishna v. Tek Chand; Deep Shikha v. National Insurance.

What did the court decide?

The Family Pension being received by claimant/appellant No.1 (widow) was liable to be deducted while computing the income of the deceased; the argument that such deduction cannot be made is rejected. ¶40

Jaswinder Kaur and Others Vs Tejinder Singh… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimants/appellants No.2 to 4, being children of the deceased, were entitled to Rs.48,000/- each by way of parental consortium, which the Tribunal did not award. +2 more

¶21

Court's answer

Claimants No.2 to 4, being 37, 34 and 36 years old respectively, cannot be held financially dependent upon the deceased; nothing on record shows such dependence, and appellant No.4 being the married daughter cannot be held dependent; hence the claim to parental consortium finds no merit.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The Family Pension being received by claimant/appellant No.1 (widow) was liable to be deducted while computing the income of the deceased; the argument that such deduction cannot be made is rejected.

¶40

Key takeaways

A deduction of 50% towards personal expenses ought to have been made instead of 1/4th; consequently the appellants have already received compensation in excess of what is payable to them as per law, and no ground is made out to enhance the compensation.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J.) dismisses FAO-3802-2025(O&M) filed by claimants seeking enhancement of Rs.14,79,353/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (Award dt. 21.02.2025 in MACP/254/2022 under S.166 MV Act) for the death of Sohan Singh (60) in a car accident on 29.11.2022. Held: (i) the Family Pension of Rs.26,969/- p.m. received by the widow had to be deducted from the deceased's pension of Rs.44,282/- p.m. while computing dependency income, relying on Vishavjit Singh (SC), ICICI Lombard v. Priya PS (P&H) and Krishna v. Tek Chand (SC); (ii) the adult children (aged 37, 34, 36) and the married daughter were not proved financially dependent, so no parental consortium was payable, relying on Deep Shikha (SC); (iii) deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 50%, not 1/4th, so the compensation already exceeded the payable amount. Appeal dismissed; pending application(s) disposed of.

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

136

¶4

FAO-3802-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 13.11.2025

¶5

Jaswinder Kaur & Others

¶6

...Appellant(s)

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Tejinder Singh & Others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

¶14

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶15

Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking

¶16

enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,79,353/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 21.02.2025 passed in MACP/254/2022 dated 16.12.2022 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 4 claimants are the 56-year-old widow, 37-year-old son, 34-year-old son and 36-year-old daughter of deceased Sohan Singh, who was 60 years old at the time of accident.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Sohan Singh had died due to the injuries suffered

¶18

SUNENA 2025.11.14 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.11.2022 due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No.HP-12-E-5219 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that nothing has been awarded to the claimants/appellants No.2 to 4 by the of parental consortium. It is submitted that being children of the deceased, the said claimants were entitled to Rs.48,000/- each by way of parental consortium. It is also submitted that income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed as Rs.17,313/- per month. It is pointed out that the deceased was receiving pension of Rs.44,282/-per month; and now, the appellant No.1/widow is receiving Rs.26,969/- towards Family Pension. The income has been assessed after deducting the said amount of Rs.26,969/- being received by the appellant No.1/widow towards Family Pension from the total pension amount of Rs.44,282/- which was last received by the deceased merely prior to his death. It is contended that the said deduction cannot be made. Ld. counsel accordingly prays that impugned Award be modified as above.

¶22

SUNENA 2025.11.14 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have

¶25

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants.

¶26

Argument of learned counsel that Family Pension being received by claimant/appellant no.1/widow cannot be deducted while computing income of the deceased, is liable to be rejected in view of the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishavjit Singh v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2753589 , decided on 21.05.2025, wherein it is held that: –

¶27

“9. The issue with regard to the reduction of the deceased's income from Rs. 22,712/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve) per month to Rs. 6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month, upon scrutiny, appears to be justified. Since, the deceased was a pensioner and there was no evidence of any independent source of income, the High Court has rightly held that the amount being received by the widow as family pension had to be deducted. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the income of the deceased as assessed by the High Court at Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month.”

¶28

(Emphasis added) 6. Reference is also made to a judgment passed by this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Priya PS, (Punjab And

¶29

Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804935 ; wherein it is held that “ Compensation in motor accident cases - Family pension cannot be added to

¶30

SUNENA 2025.11.14 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

the income of deceased for determining loss of dependency – Only notional income of deceased as determined by Tribunal to be considered.”

¶33

Reference is also made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶34

Court in Krishna & Ors. - Versus Tek Chand & Ors. (SC); Law Finder Doc Id #

¶35

2531576, decided on 05.02.2024; wherein it is held as under:-

¶36

“6. …… In the case of a motor vehicle accidents, when negligence is proved, loss of dependency is compensated for the very same reason. In our view, there cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune.

¶37

In another words, on the death of the person in harness, owing to a road traffic accident the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government.”

¶38

(Emphasis added)

¶39

In view of the legal position enunciated above, it is clear that

¶40

the family pension being received by the appellant was liable to be deducted while computing income of the deceased.

¶41

Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to

¶42

the appellants in the following manner:-

¶43

Head	Amount
Monthlyincome	Rs.17,313/-
Annual income	Rs.2,07,756/-
Futureprospects	Nil
Total income	Rs.2,07,756/-
Deduction of 1/4^th towards	Rs.2,07,756/- - Rs.51,939/- =
personal expenses	Rs.1,55,817/-
Multiplicand	Rs.1,55,817/-

¶44

SUNENA 2025.11.14 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

Multiplier	Rs.1,55,817/- x 9 = Rs.14,02,353/-
Loss of spousal consortium to	Rs.44,000/-
claimant No.1
Loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.16,500/-
Total	Rs.14,79,353/-

¶47

A perusal of the above table shows that learned Tribunal has taken the claimants No.2 to 4 to be dependents upon the deceased and has accordingly made a deduction of 1/4^th towards personal expenses. Whereas the said claimants being 37, 34 and 36 years old respectively, cannot be held to be financially dependent upon the deceased. Nothing has been brought on record by the claimants to show that the said claimants were financially dependent upon the deceased. Even further, admittedly, claimant/appellant No.4 is the married daughter of the deceased; and can therefore, not be held to be dependent. Reliance may be placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2729764 ; wherein it is held that married daughter of the deceased is not entitled to compensation, unless financial dependency is proved. As such, keeping in view the above factual and legal position, a deduction of 50% ought to have been made towards personal expenses. Clearly, therefore, appellants have already received compensation in excess of what is payable to them as per law. Therefore, no ground is made out to enhance the compensation. Present appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

¶48

SUNENA 2025.11.14 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

Page 6 of 6

¶50

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶51

13.11.2025 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶52

SUNENA 2025.11.14 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaswinder Kaur and Others v. Tejinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Kaur and Others v. Tejinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Tarjit Singh @ Kala and Ors.

M/S Hotel Makhan Residency and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation Amritsar

Hira Singh Vs Tarjit Singh Alias Kala and Ors.

Rishi Pal and Ors. Vs Arun Kumar Gupta, Addl. Secretary to Govt. of Haryana

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Bhateri Devi

Sona Devi Vs Ramesh Kumar and Others