Dismissed¶88

United India Insurance Co. v. Sonia & Ors.

Motor Accident Claims – Quantum of compensation

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2025FAO/5842/2012

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-5842-2012; United India Insurance vs Sonia & Ors.; High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Justice Sudeepti Sharma; pronounced 22.09.2025; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sirsa award dated 24.07.2012; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; quantum of compensation Rs.7,01,600/- with 7.5% interest; appeal dismissed as infructuous; relief subsumed in FAO-5950-2012 (Sonia v. Amandeep Mittal) allowed same day; statutory deposit Rs.25,000/- refunded; Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121; Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma General Insurance 2018(18) SCC 130 filial consortium.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant-Insurance Company; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶88

United India Insurance Co. Vs Sonia & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Refund of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant-Insurance Company; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶88

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal (Rs.7,01,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to claimants/respondents No.1 to 3) is on the higher side and deserves reduction — the sole issue for determination in the appeal.

¶16

Court's answer

Since FAO-5950-2012 filed by claimants/respondents No.1 and 3 has already been allowed by this Court vide order of even date, and the relief sought in the present appeal is subsumed in that judgment, the adjudication of the present appeal no longer survives for consideration.

¶87

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.

¶88

Key takeaways

The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of admission of the appeal is ordered to be refunded to them.ratio¶89
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶90

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims — Quantum of compensation — United India Insurance Co. appealed against the award dated 24.07.2012 of the MACT, Sirsa (in a Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 petition) whereby it was held liable to pay Rs.7,01,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to claimants/respondents No.1 to 3, contending the quantum was on the higher side. Held: dismissing the appeal — the claimants' companion appeal FAO-5950-2012 ('Sonia and others Vs. Amandeep Mittal and others') had already been allowed by this Court vide order of even date, and the relief sought in the present appeal stood subsumed in that judgment, so its adjudication no longer survived; the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- was ordered refunded to the appellant, and pending applications were disposed of. Settled-law passages from Sarla Verma (deductions, multiplier table), Pranay Sethi (conventional heads, future prospects) and Magma (spousal/parental/filial consortium) were reproduced, but no fresh computation of compensation was undertaken in this appeal.

¶1

FAO-5842-2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-5842-2012 Reserved on:- 10.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 22.09.2025

¶5

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

......Appellant

vs.

SONIA & ORS.

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Narula, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

¶15

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’), wherein, the appellant insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant/respondent No.1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.7,01,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

¶16

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

¶17

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

FAO-5842-2012

¶19

-2-

¶20

narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

¶21

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and deserves to be reduced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced as per latest law.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for claimants/respondents, however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded is on lower side and claimants/respondent No.1 to 3 have preferred FAO-5950-2012 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to claimants/respondents. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the whole record of this case with his able assistance.

¶25

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

¶26

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] ,

¶27

laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

¶28

“ 30 . Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the

¶29

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

FAO-5842-2012

¶31

-3-

¶32

deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶33

31 . Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

¶34

32 . Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the

¶35

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶36

FAO-5842-2012

¶37

-4-

¶38

deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother

¶39

and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will

¶40

be taken as two-third.

¶41

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

¶42

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶43

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the

¶44

law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:-

¶45

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

¶46

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

¶47

¶48

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶49

FAO-5842-2012

¶50

-5-

¶51

(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;

¶52

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.

¶53

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶54

“ 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind

¶55

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶56

FAO-5842-2012

¶57

-6-

¶58

of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.

¶59

59.3 . While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 . In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income

¶60

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶61

FAO-5842-2012

¶62

-7-

¶63

should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶64

59.5 . For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

¶65

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment.

¶66

59.7 . The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶67

59.8 . Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

¶68

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others

¶69

[2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

¶70

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶71

FAO-5842-2012

¶72

-8-

¶73

“ 21 . A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

¶74

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

¶75

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

¶76

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their

¶77

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶78

FAO-5842-2012

¶79

-9-

¶80

love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

¶81

22 . Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23 . The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

¶82

24 . The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding

¶83

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶84

FAO-5842-2012

¶85

-10-

¶86

compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

¶87

At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that FAO-5950-2012, titled as “Sonia and others Vs. Amandeep Mittal and others” filed by claimants/respondents No.1 and 3 has already been allowed by this Court vide order of even date. In view thereof, the adjudication of the present appeal no longer survives for consideration, as the relief sought herein subsumed in the aforesaid judgment.

¶88

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

¶89

The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellantInsurance Company at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to them.

¶90

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

¶91

22.09.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes

¶92

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

United India Insurance Co. v. Sonia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. v. Sonia & 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs Haryana State

Rameshwar Dass Vs State of Haryna and Ors.

Jatinder Kumar Khara Vs Krishan Kumar and Anr.

Shanti Devi and Others Vs Pawan and Others

Daulat Ram Narwara Vs State of Haryana

United India Insurance Co. Vs Sonia & Ors.