Allowed

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Shubh Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2026FAO/137/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals for enhancement of motor accident death compensation were partly re-computed by adding 40% future prospects, 50% personal expense deduction, multiplier of 18, and enhanced amounts under conventional heads per precedent; award modified and appeals allowed with 6% interest on enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,84,380/- and Rs.3,35,980/- respectively with 6% interest from date of filing appeals; Award dated 21.03.2007 modified.

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. Vs Shubh Ram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Kulwant Kaur and others Shubh Ram and others Nirmala Devi and another Shubh Ram and others

¶3

(i) FAO-137-2008 (O&M)
...Appellants
VERSUS
...Respondents
(ii) FAO-138-2008 (O&M)
...Appellants
VERSUS
...Respondents
Date of Decision: January 23, 2026

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶5

Present: Mr.Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.

¶6

Service of respondents No.1 and 2 exempted.

¶7

Respondent No.3 proceeded against ex-parte.

¶8

¶9

ARCHANA PURI, J.

¶10

These are two appeals filed by the respective appellantsclaimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, awarded on account of death of Palwinder Singh @ Rinku and Vijay Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident.

¶11

VINEET GULATI 2026.01.29 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶12

FAO-137-2008 and connected case -2-

¶13

Suffice to consider that the accident had taken place on 02.10.2005. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HNQ-2977, driven by respondent No.1-Shubh Ram and the same resulted into causing of multiple injuries on the person of Palwinder Singh @ Rinku and Vijay Kumar, who were on motorcycle bearing No.HR-01P-7547 and the said injuries, proved fatal.

¶14

It was categoric claim of the appellants-claimants that Palwinder Singh @ Rinku was 22 years old and Vijay Kumar was 25 years old, at the time of accident and both of them were unmarried. It was also so recorded, on appraisal of the evidence. Both were asserted to be running a cable centre in partnership and having earnings of Rs.8000/- per month each. However, as no evidence, relating to the same was brought on record, both the deceased were considered as casual labourers and their earnings were assessed as Rs.2400/- per month each and thereupon, compensation was worked upon. 1/3rd was deducted, on the count of ‘personal expenses’ and multiplier of ‘8’ was applied and compensation was worked upon, on account of death of Palwinder Singh @ Rinku and Vijay Kumar, as now reproduced in tabular form:

¶15

Earnings Rs.2400/- per month 1/3rd deduction Rs.2400-800=Rs.1600/- per month, annual whereof is Rs.19,200/Multiplier of ‘8’ Rs.19,200x8=Rs.1,53,600/Funeral expenses etc. Rs.6400/- Total Rs.1,60,000/-

¶16

However, the ‘work on’ of the compensation aforesaid, do call

¶17

VINEET GULATI 2026.01.29 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

FAO-137-2008 and connected case -3-

¶19

for re-computation.

¶20

So far as, age of Palwinder Singh @ Rinku and Vijay Kumar, at the time of accident is concerned, it is appropriately considered to be 22 years and 25 years respectively. Their marital status was unmarried. So far as, indulgence of both the deceased in running of business of cable centre is concerned, no evidence, as such, had come on record. In the light of the same, learned Tribunal had appropriately considered them as casual labourers and their earnings to be Rs.2400/- per month, as per the minimum wages, existing at the relevant time.

¶21

However, considering the age of the deceased, addition of 40% ought to be made, on the count of ‘future prospects’ i.e. Rs.960/- Thus, total monthly earnings are taken as Rs.3360/-. Since, both the deceased were unmarried, therefore, as per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the deduction, on the count of ‘personal expenses’ has to be 50% i.e. Rs.1680/- and after making such deduction, the loss of dependency is worked upon as Rs.1680/- per month, annual whereof is worked upon as Rs.20,160/-.

¶22

Even, the multiplier applied by learned Tribunal is erroneous. As per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 , it is the age of the deceased, which ought to be taken into consideration, while applying the multiplier. Considering the same and considering the age of both the deceased, ‘18’ is the appropriate multiplier to be applied and thus, by applying the same, the loss of dependency works to be Rs.20160x18 =Rs.3,62,880/- .

¶23

So far as, Palwinder Singh @ Rinku is concerned, under the

¶24

VINEET GULATI 2026.01.29 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

FAO-137-2008 and connected case -4-

¶26

conventional heads, the amount awarded, on the count of ‘funeral expenses’ is on lesser side. As per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) , the amount to be awarded, at present, is Rs.18,150/- , on this count and on similar parameters, appellants-claimants are also entitled to Rs.18,150/- , on the count of ‘loss of estate’.

¶27

From the cross-examination, Kulwant Kaur, mother of deceased Palwinder Singh @ Rinku, it is evident that father of deceased is a retired Army man. During the livelihood of father, the younger sister is bound to be dependent upon her father and not the deceased, but anyhow, ‘loss of consortium’ also comprehends ‘loss of love and affection’ and therefore, sister of the deceased, as such, is entitled to compensation, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’. Taking it to be so, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’, all the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.48,400/- each i.e. Rs.48,400x3= Rs.1,45,200/- .

¶28

Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellantsclaimants, on account of death of Palwinder Singh @ Rinku, is re-computed, as herein given:-

¶29

Loss of dependency : Rs.3,62,880/Loss of consortium : Rs.1,45,200/Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/Total : Rs.5,44,380/-

¶30

As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.5,44,3801,60,000=Rs.3,84,380/- .

¶31

VINEET GULATI 2026.01.29 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

FAO-137-2008 and connected case

¶33

-5-

¶34

Similalry, the compensation payable to appellants-claimants, on account of death of Vijay Kumar, is re-computed, as herein given:-

¶35

Loss of dependency : Rs.3,62,880/Loss of consortium : Rs.96,800/Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/Total : Rs.4,95,980/-

¶36

As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.4,95,9801,60,000=Rs.3,35,980/- .

¶37

On the enhanced amount of the compensation, as now worked upon aforesaid, the appellants-claimants, shall be entitled to the interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the appeals, till realization of the enhanced amount of compensation. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the appellants-claimants, in equal shares.

¶38

The impugned Award dated 21.03.2007 stands modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid. With the above observations, both the appeals stand allowed.

¶39

January 23, 2026 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶40

VINEET GULATI 2026.01.29 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Shubh Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Shubh Ram 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

Mandeep Kaur Vs Ajay Singh

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar and Ors.

Ram Lakhan & Anr. Vs Gulab Singh & Ors.

Nirmala Devi and Ors. Vs Shubh Ram and Ors.

Kajal Singh Vs Vikram Singh Sahota