Anju Sharma and Ors. Vs Surinder Singh and Ors.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.05.2019 on account of death of Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’).

¶13

Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

¶14

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

¶15

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1	Annual income	Rs.4,21,781/-
2	Futureprospects - 30%	[Rs.4,21,781 + 1,26,534] = Rs.5,48,315/-
3	Income after applying deduction @ 1/4^th	Rs.3,96,236/-

¶16

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

FAO-4945-2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

4	Multiplier of 14	[Rs. 3,96,236 x 14] = Rs.55,47,304/-
5	Loss of consortium to wife	Rs.40,000/-
6	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
7	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.56,17,304/-
	Interest	7%per annum

¶20

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that although it was specifically averred in the claim petition that the deceased was working as an executive in the Production Department of Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh but the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the annual income of the deceased as per income tax return filed for the financial year 2017-18. He would further contend that the evidence led by the claimantappellants qua the salary being drawn by the deceased at the time of his death has been totally ignored by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimantappellants has referred to the testimony of Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Manager of Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh who stepped into the witness-box as AW2 and stated that he had brought the entire record to show that the deceased - Manoj Kumar - was drawing an annual salary package of Rs.6,12,804/- and this witness proved on record the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.A4; details of the salary from the date of joining of the deceased till his death as Ex.A5; and Form 16-A for the Financial Years 201516, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as Ex.A6 to Ex.A8. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further contend that he does not challenge the deduction, addition of future prospects and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. However, it has been contended that the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium is not in accordance with law laid down by the

¶21

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

-3-

¶23

FAO-4945-2019

¶24

Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of 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] .

¶25

Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that the amount of compensation has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and further that the addition towards future prospects ought to have been 25%, which has erroneously been made as 30%. Learned counsel for the claimantappellants, at this stage, fairly concedes that the addition towards loss of future prospects ought to be 25%.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

In the present case the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of income tax return for the Financial Year 201617 inasmuch as the evidence produced on record by the appellants i.e. the documents (Ex.A4 to Ex.A8) reveal that the annual salary package of the deceased was Rs.6,12,804/- and no contrary evidence was led by the respondents thereto before the Tribunal. Further, no reason has been pointed out to disbelieve the statement of Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Manager of Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh who stepped into the witness-box as AW2 and proved on record the above documents. In view thereof, the annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,12,804/- as per his salary certificate proved on record as Ex.A4 out of which requisite income tax prevailing at the relevant assessment year is required to be deducted.

¶28

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

FAO-4945-2019

¶30

-4-

¶31

The Tribunal also erred in making an addition of 30% towards loss of future prospects inasmuch as the deceased in the present case was 42 years of age and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 25% ought to have been made towards loss of future prospects. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads and under the head of ‘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) and hence the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/(Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimantappellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.

¶32

Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

¶33

Sr. No.	Heads		Compensation Awarded
1	Annual income		Rs.6,12,804/-
2	Annual income deducting Rs.26, towards income applicable at relevantpoint of ti	after 660/- tax the me	[Rs.6,12,804–26,660] = Rs.5,86,144/-
3	Deduction–1/4^th		[Rs.5,86,144–1,46,536] = Rs.4,39,608/-
4	Futureprospects -	25%	[Rs.4,39,608 + 1,09,902] = Rs.5,49,510/-
5	Multiplier of 14		[Rs.5,49,510 x 14] = Rs.76,93,140/-
6	Loss of estate		Rs.18,000/-
7	Funeral expenses		Rs.18,000/-
8	Loss of consortium (i) Spousal (ii) Parental (iii) Filial		Rs.48,000/- [Rs.48,000 x 2] = Rs.96,000/- [Rs.48,000 x 2] = Rs.96,000/-
			Rs.2,40,000/-
	Total		Rs.79,69,140/-

¶34

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

-5-

¶36

FAO-4945-2019

¶37

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimantappellants as directed by the Tribunal.

¶38

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

¶39

08.01.2025 jk

¶40

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE

¶41

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

¶42

JITENDER KUMAR 2025.01.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Anju Sharma and Ors. v. Surinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Sharma and Ors. v. Surinder Singh 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

Nihal Singh Vs Naveen Yadav

Gurinder Kaur Vs Kuldeep Kaur and Others

Subhash Chander Vs Gulshan Sharma and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

UOI Vs Dr.C.K.Mittal

Raj Pal & Another Vs Jai Singh and Ors.