Laxmi Kumari and Others Vs Harpreet Singh and Others

Prayer in this application f iled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963is for condonation o f delay of 167 days in filing the accompan y ing appeal.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported b y an affidavit, the same is all o wed and delay of 167 days in filing the p resent appeal is condoned.

¶16

Needless to say, no interest w ill be payable to the appellantclaimants f or the aforesaid period of 167 d a ys. FAO-1554-2025

¶17

The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancem e nt of the compensation of ₹17, 7 1,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident C laims Tribunal, Ludhiana (fo r short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Awar d dated 09.05.2024, passed in M ACP Petition No. 155 of 2022

¶18

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

FAO-1554-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶20

filed unde r Sections 166 and 140 of Mo t or Vehicles Act, 1988. The 06 claimants a re the: i) 29-year-old widow; ii) 03 minor children; and iii) parents of d eceased Manoj Kumar Dass w h o was 36 years old at the time of acciden t .

¶21

Brief facts of the case are t h at the learned Tribunal on the basis of p leadings and evidence addu c ed before it concluded that deceased- M anoj Kumar Dass, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 25.01.2022 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing re g istration No. PB-23-T-1817 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.1-Harpreet Singh; owned by responden t No. 2-M/s Chankaya Dairy P roducts Ltd.; and insured by responden t No. 3-Insurance Company. L earned Tribunal awarded the above co m pensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual reali z ation. All the respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compens a tion jointly and severally. The amount of compensation is apportioned a m ongst the claimants as under: -

¶22

1. L axmi Kumari(Widow)	35%
2. A man Kumar(minorson)	15%
3.J uli Kumari	15%
(mi nor daughter)
4. A bhishek Kumar(minorson)	15%
5.C hameliya Devi,mother	10%
6.R am Chander Dass,father	10%

¶23

Learned counsel for the ap p ellants seeks enhancement of compensat i on by submitting that the l e arned Tribunal has wrongly assessed t h e income of the deceased as only ₹9000/- per month. It is submitted that the appellants have prov e d on record that prior to the accident i n question, the deceased was w o rking as Printing Operator and was earni n g ₹20,000/- per month. Learn e d counsel submits that despite

¶24

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶25

FAO-1554-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶26

this learne d Tribunal had assessed the mo n thly income of the deceased on the lower s ide as only ₹9000/- per month.

¶27

Ld. counsel also submits that c ompensation is to be enhanced as only sp o usal consortium has been awa r ded to claimant No. 1-widow. Nothing h a s been paid by way of consorti u m to claimants No. 2 to 6.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Notice of motion only to respondent No. 3-Insurance

¶30

Company, at this stage.

¶31

On the asking of Court, Mr. N eeraj Khanna, Advocate who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Learned counsel for responden t No. 3 vehemently opposes the submissio n s advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that just and fair compensation has a lready been awarded to the appellants.

¶32

No other argument is raised o n behalf of the parties. 9. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find some merit in the argume n ts advanced on behalf of the appellants.

¶33

Perusal of the record shows t hat it was the pleaded case of the appell a nt-claimants that prior to the ac c ident in question, the deceased was work i ng as Operator of Printing M achine in Ganga Acrowools Limited, G .T. Road, Village Kot Sek h on, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana a nd was earning ₹20,000/- per m onth. In support, the appellants had produ c ed salary slip of the deceased a s Ex. C-8 as per which appellant was drawi n g salary of ₹19,879/- per mo n th. However, said salary slip

¶34

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶35

FAO-1554-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶36

cannot be r elied upon as no official from t h e said Company was examined by the cl a imants to prove the alleged occupation or income of the deceased. Even no documentary proof in the form of bank account statement o f the deceased was produced b y the appellants to substantiate their clai m and to corroborate salary slip Ex. C-8. Rather, claimant No. 1/widow o f deceased as PW-1 had ad m itted that deceased had only studied up to 8^th standard; and he was n ot having any qualification or expertise i n any field; and that he was no t an income-tax assessee.PW-2 Rohit Ra m , eye-witness has also admitte d during cross-examination that he did not know the qualification, age, or occupation of the deceased. In this scena r io, income of the deceased has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal a s ₹9000/- per month as that of a l abourer. 11. Further, age of the deceased w as determined to be 36 years at the time of accident on the basis of Post-mortem Report Ex.P-2. According l y, the learned Tribunal had m a de an addition of 40% towards future pro s pects in conformity with judg m ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; and correctl y applied multiplier of 15as per Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882. A s there were 06 claimants, the learned Tribunal has correctly made ded u ction of 1/3^rd towards personal e x penses. 12. However, under the Con v entional Heads, the learned Tribunal h as awarded a sum of ₹40,0 0 0/- towards loss of spousal consortiu m only to claimant No. 1; ₹15,0 0 0/- towards loss of estate; and ₹15,000/towards funeral expenses. Nothing has been awarded to

¶37

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶38

FAO-1554-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶39

claimants N o. 2 to 6 towards loss of paren t al consortium (claimants No. 2 to 4) and f i lial consortium (claimants No. 5 and 6). In view of law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), appellants No. 2 to 6 are e n titled to an amount of ₹40,000 / - each by way of parental and filial cons o rtium, respectively.

¶40

In view of the above disc u ssion, the present appeal is partly allowed and compensation pa y able to the appellants is

¶41

re-assesse d as under:-

¶42

Details	Before the Tribunal	Revised compensation
Income	₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum	₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum
Future prosp ects	40% ₹9000+3600 x 12=₹1,51,200/-	40% ₹9000+3600 x 12 = ₹1,51,200/-
Deduction	1/4^th= ₹37,800/- per annum 1,51,200- 37,800 = 1,13,400/-	1/4^th= ₹37,800/- per annum 1,51,200-37,800 = 1,13,400/-
Multiplier	15	15
Loss dependency of	₹1,13,400/- x 15 = ₹17,01,000/-	₹1,13,400/- x 15 = ₹17,01,000/-
Loss of consortium spousal	₹40,000/- to claimant No. 1/widow only	₹40,000/-
Loss ofp consortium arental	Nil	₹40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 4 (minor children) i.e. 40,000 x 3 = ₹1,20,000/-
Loss of consortium filial	Nil	₹40,000/- each to claimants No. 5 and 6 (parents of the deceased) 40,000 x 2 = ₹80,000/-
Funeral exp enses	₹15,000/-	₹15,000/-
Loss of Esta te	₹15,000/-	₹15,000/-
Total compensati on	₹17,71,000/-	₹19,71,000/-
Interest	7.5% per annum	7.5%

¶43

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

¶44

25.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶45

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶46

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶47

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Laxmi Kumari and Others v. Harpreet Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Kumari and Others v. Harpreet 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

Nidhi Verma Vs V.K. Jain Secretary Shrijainendra Gurukul Sector 1 Distt Panchkula

Sher Singh Vs Kulwinder Singh Randhawa & Ors.

Jagmohan Vs M/S Laxmi Narayan Naresh Kumar

Janmit Singh Chadda Vs Kanwaljit Singh Chadda and Others

Anita and Others Vs Neeraj and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Preeti & Ors.