Jatinder Singh and Another Vs Kulvir Singh @ Talvir Singh

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 31.03.2022 on account of death of Nahar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 09.12.2020.

¶10

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

¶11

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

¶12

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.12.20 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Chandigarh

¶13

FAO-4679-2022

¶14

-2-

¶15

Sr. No.	Heads	Compen	sation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹8,000/-
2	Future Prospects-10%	₹8,800/-	[₹8,000 + ₹800]
3	Deduction-1/3rd	₹5,867/-	[₹8,800 - ₹2,933]
4	Annual Income	₹70,404/-	[₹5,867 x 12]
5	Multiplier-9	₹6,33,636/-	[₹70,404 x 9]
6	Loss of estate	₹15,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹15,000/-
8	Medical expenses	₹96,635/-
	Total Compensation	₹7,60,271/-
	Interest	7%

¶16

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

¶17

he does not challenge the deduction, multiplier and future prospects as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹8,000/- per month inasmuch as the minimum wage applicable for an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was ₹8,451/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants 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] .

¶18

Per contra , learned counsel for the 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.

¶19

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.12.20 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Chandigarh

¶20

FAO-4679-2022

¶21

-3-

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction, multiplier and future prospects as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹8,000/- per month which in the opinion of this Court is on the lower side inasmuch as the minimum wage applicable for an unskilled worker at the time of the accident was ₹8,451/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹8,451/- per month, which is rounded off to ₹8,500/- per month.

¶24

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 General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. The amount of ₹96,635/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is maintained. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

¶25

Sr.No.	Heads	Compe	nsation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹8,500/-
2	Annual Income	₹1,02,000/-	[₹8,500 x 12]
3	Deduction-1/3^rd	₹68,000/-	[₹1,02,000 - ₹34,000]
4	Future Prospects-10%	₹74,800/-	[₹68,000 + ₹6,800]
5	Multiplier-9	₹6,73,200/-	[₹74,800 x 9]
6	Loss of estate	₹18,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹18,000/-

¶26

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.12.20 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Chandigarh

¶27

FAO-4679-2022

¶28

-4-

¶29

8	Loss of consortium
	(i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 2]	₹96,000/-
		(Total ₹96,000/-)
9	Medical expenses	₹96,635/-
	Total Compensation	₹9,01,835/-

¶30

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.

¶31

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 percentage directed by the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-appellants 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 upto-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

¶32

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

¶33

19.12.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE

¶34

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

¶35

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.12.20 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Chandigarh

Jatinder Singh and Another v. Kulvir Singh @ Talvir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Singh and Another v. Kulvir Singh @ Talvir 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

Ravinder Arora Vs Mr Kg Sharma Deputy General Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Balaji Multipurpose Cold Storage Vs Praveen Aggarwal and Others

Ramesh Chand Vs Gurleen Kaur and Others

Sawaran Singh and Ors. Vs Vinod Sharma and Ors.

Kela @ Lajja and Another Vs Amar Chand and Others

Santokho Devi and Anr. Vs Bodh Raj Sharma and Others