Allowed

Sushila and Ors. v. Ajit Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2026FAO/1148/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award by enhancing compensation. It applied principles from Pranay Sethi for future prospects (25%) and multiplier (13), adding heads for loss of consortium and estate, increasing the total from Rs. 1,92,000 to Rs. 3,72,000 plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,92,000/- to Rs. 3,72,000/- with 7.5% interest.

Sushila and Ors. Vs Ajit Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

¶2

AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

225

¶4

FAO-1148-2002 (O&M) Date of decision:02.07.2026

¶5

SUSHILA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sunil Bhadwaj, Advocate for appellants.

¶11

¶12

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife and two sons of Dharambir (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 06.03.2000, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No. HR-46A-5056 , being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 03.10.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), being not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶14

Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellantsclaimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶15

In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:

¶16

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO-1148-2002 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

Income	Rs.2,400/-
	per month
Deduction	1/3^rd
Multiplier	10
Total compensation	Rs.1,92,000/-
awarded

¶20

Appellants-claimants had claimed that deceased was in transport business and plying TATA four wheeler owned by his son. It is asserted that the deceased was earning about Rs.10,000-12,000/- per month by plying the TATA four wheeler. PW-6, Sushila Devi, wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased used to drive the vehicle of his son and earn about Rs.10,000-12,000/- per month. She also produced driving license Ex. P6 of the deceased. However, except for making oral assertions that deceased was working as a driver and earning about Rs.10,000-Rs.12,000/-per month no documentary evidence to show employment of deceased was produced. Since the driving license Ex.P-6 of the deceased has been placed on record the only conclusion from the said evidence which could be drawn is that deceased was driver by vocation. No cogent evidence to take pleaded income of deceased is available. No evidence was led to show that deceased was owner of any vehicle or TATA four -wheeler. In absence of any evidence supporting oral claim that deceased was earning about Rs.10,000-12,000/per month, learned Tribunal has rightly taken minimum wages payable to driver in year 2000. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.2,400/per month as was held by learned Tribunal.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has asserted that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to be added SUNIL CHANDER to the extent of 25% in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

FAO-1148-2002 (O&M) -3-

¶23

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680. Keeping in view age of the deceased as 48/49 years as per the post-mortem report the multiplier of ‘13’ would be applicable. Appropriate amount of compensation needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶24

Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month as per minimum wages payable to a skilled person taking deceased to be driver. Since deceased was survived by three legal representatives, 1/3rd of income is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses for determining loss of dependency. In the present case, deceased was aged about 48/49 years as per the post-mortem report (Ex.P4) and accordingly multiplier of ‘13’ would be applicable while determining loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 25% towards future prospects ought to be added to the income of the deceased in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) . Further, appellant-claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.15,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium @ Rs.15,000/- each. The appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- towards loss of estate. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of

¶25

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO-1148-2002 (O&M)

¶27

-4-

¶28

appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶29

Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-

¶30

Income	Rs. 2,400/- per month	Rs 2,400/- per month
Future prospects	25% (2400+600)	Rs.3,00/-
Deduction	1/3^rd (3000-1000)	Rs.2,000/-
Multiplier	13	13
Total loss of dependency	Rs.2,000x12x13	Rs.3,12,000/-
Loss of estate		Rs. 7,500/-
Funeral expenses		Rs. 7,500/-
Loss of spousal		Rs.15,000/-
consortium to claimant No.1
Loss of parental	Rs.15,000x2	Rs.30,000/-
consortium to
claimant Nos. 2 & 3
Total		Rs.3,72,000/-
Compensation awarded in appeal
Total Compensation	Rs.1,92,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.3,72,000/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.1,92,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.1,80,000/-

¶31

Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced

¶32

compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim

¶33

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

FAO-1148-2002 (O&M)

¶35

-5-

¶36

petition till realization of entire amount. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶37

Present appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶38

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

¶39

(PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE

¶40

02.07.2026

¶41

Sunil Chander

¶42

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶43

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sushila and Ors. v. Ajit Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila and Ors. v. Ajit Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabul Singh Vs Dalbir Singh and Ors.

Gurdev Kaur and Ors. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Simla Rani etc. Vs Jaswinder Singh etc.

Alok Chawla Vs Harvinder Singh and Others

Memoona and Ors. Vs Sukh Ram @ Sukha and Ors.

Gurdev Kaur Vs Rajwant Singh