Jaswinder Kaur and Others Vs Manjit Singh and Others

��

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-1211-2001 Date of decision: 16.01.2026 Jaswinder Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus Manjit Singh and others ...Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶5

Present: Mr. Ni'n K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pawan A+ri, Advocate for the appellants.

¶6

Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶7

¶8

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa'on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶10

The facts, in brief, are that Balkar Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 27.07.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DL-1-GB-0584. His legal representa'ves, namely his widow, three minor children and unmarried sister, filed a claim pe''on under Sec'on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa'on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶11

Learned Tribunal, vide award dated 03.11.2000, assessed the compensa'on at ₹3,29,500/-, payable jointly and severally by all the respondents along with interest.

¶12

Dissa'sfied with the quantum of compensa'on, the claimants have approached this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was an ex-serviceman and was receiving a monthly pension of ₹2,500/-.

¶14

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

��

¶16

Apart from pension, he was also engaged in dairy farming, earning approximately ₹3,000/- per month, thereby making his total monthly income ₹5,500/-. It is contended that the learned Tribunal excluded the pension amount from considera'on on the ground that the same was being received by the widow aCer the death of the deceased and assessed the loss of income at ₹2,500/- per month. Learned counsel submits that even if pension is excluded, the Tribunal erred in not gran'ng future prospects, par'cularly when the deceased was 34 years of age. It is further contended that all five claimants are en'tled to compensa'on under the head of consor'um, including filial consor'um.

¶17

Learned counsel for the insurance company fairly concedes that, in view of the se+led law, future prospects to the extent of 40% are liable to be added and compensa'on towards consor'um is payable to all eligible claimants.

¶18

This Court has considered the submissions and carefully perused the record.

¶19

The learned Tribunal has correctly excluded the pension amount from computa'on of loss of dependency, as pension con'nues to accrue to the widow and does not cons'tute loss of income arising out of death. However, once the income is assessed, the Tribunal ought to have applied the se+led principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to future prospects.

¶20

In Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court authorita'vely held that where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, 40% addi'on towards future prospects is mandatory, even in cases of self-employed or fixed salary persons.

¶21

The deceased being 34 years of age, and so the appellants are clearly en'tled to addi'on of future prospects. Further, in view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others [(2018)

¶22

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

��

¶24

18 SCC 130] , compensa'on under the head of consor'um is payable not only to the spouse but also towards parental and filial consor'um, depending upon the rela'onship of the claimants with the deceased.

¶25

As regards the quantum of consor'um, the submission that each claimant should be awarded ₹40,000/- cannot be accepted. In Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others , decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court standardised the amount of ₹40,000/- under the head of loss of consor'um, with a further observa'on that the said amount would require enhancement at the rate of 10% every three years so as to offset infla'on and maintain uniformity.

¶26

However, the present accident occurred in the year 1999, nearly two decades prior to the pronouncement in Pranay Sethi . To mechanically apply the figures fixed in 2017 to accidents, which occurred much earlier would result in distor'on of the compensa'on framework and confer an unintended windfall, which is impermissible in law. Some uniformity is required, in such case, where accident occurred much prior to 2017.

¶27

While the Supreme Court has provided for periodic enhancement of conven'onal heads, the underlying principle is that such amounts must broadly reflect the prevailing economic condi'ons and judicial standards at the 'me of the accident . Guided by this ra'onale, it would be just and reasonable to apply the said principle contextually , keeping in view the long temporal gap between the accident and the judgment in Pranay Sethi .

¶28

Accordingly, by applying the principle in a reverse and approximate manner, and allowing a propor'onate reduc'on having regard to the intervening period of about eighteen years, a reduc'on of around 60% from the figure of ₹40,000/- would meet the ends of jus'ce.

¶29

In view of the above legal posi'on, the compensa'on payable to the appellants is re-worked as under:

¶30

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

��

¶32

Head	Amount
� Monthly income of the deceased (a�er excluding pension)	₹2,500/-
� Annual income	₹30,000/-
� Deduc'on towards personal ex	penses ₹7500/
(1/4th, there being 5 dependents)	,-
� Annual loss of dependency	₹22,500/-
� ACer addi'on of 40% towards	future ₹31,500/-
prospects	per annum
� Mul'plier applicable (age 34 years)	16
� Total loss of dependency	₹5,04,000/-

¶33

Considering that the accident occurred in the year 1999, a conven'onal amount is awarded under the non-pecuniary heads as under:

¶34

Head	Amount
� Loss of consor'um / filial consor'um � (₹16,000/- × 5 claimants)	₹80,000/-
� Loss of estate	₹5,000/-
� Funeral expenses	₹5,000/-
� Total compensa'on	₹5,94,000/-

¶35

The learned Tribunal had awarded compensa'on of ₹3,29,500/-. Consequently, the claimants are en'tled to enhanced compensa'on of ₹2,64,500/-.

¶36

Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are held en'tled to enhanced compensa'on of ₹2,64,500/-, which shall be payable along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe''on 'll actual realiza'on. The appor'onment of the enhanced compensa'on among the claimants shall remain the same as directed by the learned Tribunal.

¶37

16.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶38

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaswinder Kaur and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Kaur and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others

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

Lal Chand Since Deceased Vs Kunti and Others

Food Corp. of India Vs Paras Ram

The New India Insurance Company Ohters Vs Raj Thapar

Bank of Maharashtra Vs F.C.I. and Ors.

Gurmukh Singh Vs Gurnam Singh and Others

Asha Rani and Anr. Vs Jagdeep Singh and Ors.