Anuradha Sethi Vs Gurmail Singh

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -1FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH	B AND HARYANA
1.	FAO-1769-2003
	ANURADHA SETHI AND ANOTHER VERSUS	......... Appellants
	GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS	..... Respondents
2.	FAO-1767-2003
	ANURADHA SETHI VERSUS	......... Appellant
	GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS	d
		..... Responents
3.	FAO-1768-2003
	ANURADHA SETHI VERSUS	......... Appellant
	GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS	..... Respondents
4.	FAO-1770-2003
	BABY SAMRIDHI SETHI VERSUS	......... Appellant
	GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS	..... Respondents
1.	Judgment reserved on	18.04.2026
2.	Judgment pronounced on	16.07.2026
3.	Judgment uploaded on	20.07.2026
4.	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.	Full
5.	The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof.	Nil

¶3

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶4

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -2FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

¶6

Argued by : Mr. Ajayvir Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶7

Ms. Navdeep Kaur Gill, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

Mr. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶9

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶10

¶11

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

¶12

The aforesaid four appeals have been instituted against the common Award dated 02.12.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short “Tribunal”) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of the death of Sh. Satish Kumar Sethi, death of infant Baby Arshia Sethi and injuries suffered by Mrs. Anuradha Sethi and minor Baby Samridhi Sethi.

¶13

Claim petition No.75 of 06.12.1999, titled Mrs. Anuradha Sethi and others Vs. Gurmail Singh and others was instituted by Mrs. Anuradha Sethi (wife), Baby Samridhi Sethi (daughter) and Sh. Madan Lal Sethi (father), for grant of compensation on account of the death of Sh. Satish Kumar Sethi in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Gurmail Singh, while driving offending Tata Tanker No. HR-39/3216, owned by respondent

¶14

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -3FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶16

No.2-M/s. Mangli Ceramices Ltd. and insured with respondent No.3Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

¶17

Claim petition No.75/1 of 06.12.1999, titled Mrs. Anuradha Sethi Vs. Gurmail Singh and others was instituted by claimant-Mrs. Anuradha Sethi, for grant of compensation on account of the death of her daughter Baby Arshia Sethi in the same accident.

¶18

Claim petition No.75/2 of 06.12.1999, titled Mrs. Anuradha Sethi Vs. Gurmail Singh and others was instituted by claimant-Mrs. Anuradha Sethi, for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the same accident.

¶19

Claim petition No.75/3 of 06.12.1999, titled Baby Samridhi Sethi Vs. Gurmail Singh and others was instituted by claimant-Baby Samridhi Sethi (minor through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Anuradha Sethi), for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the same accident.

¶20

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed

¶21

by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.75 of 06.12.1999:-

¶22

“1. Whether death of Satish Sethi was caused by respondent no.1, while driving his tanker no.HR-39-3216 in a rash and negligent manner? OPA.

¶23

2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of Satish Sethi? OPA.

¶24

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPA.

¶25

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties? OPR-1 & 2.

¶26

5. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3.

¶27

6. Relief.”

¶28

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -4FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶30

The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.75/1 of 06.12.1999:-

¶31

“1. Whether Arshia died in a motor vehicular accident on 27.06.1999 at 8.15 P.M. on G.T. Road, between the Gorayan to Phillour, Distt. Jalandhar, caused by rash and negligent driving of Tata tanker No.HR-39-3216 by respondent no.1 Gurmail Singh? OPA.

¶32

2. Whether applicants are entitled to get any compensation if so to what extent and from which of the respondent? OPA.

¶33

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR.

¶34

4. Whether the petitioner/applicant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present petition? OPR.

¶35

5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of the parties? OPR.

¶36

6. Whether the Tribunal has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition?OPR.

¶37

7. Whether Gurmail Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR.

¶38

8. Whether the vehicle no.HR-39-3216, was not having a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate? OPR.

¶39

9. Relief.”

¶40

The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in

¶41

MACT Case No.75/2 of 06.12.1999:-

¶42

“1. Whether respondent no.1 caused injuries to the claimant while driving his tanker No.HR-39-3216, in a rash and negligent manner? OPA.

¶43

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so the amount and from whom? OPA.

¶44

3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties? OPR-1 and 2.

¶45

4. Whether the respondent no.1 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-3.

¶46

5. Relief.”

¶47

The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.75/3 of 06.12.1999:-

¶48

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -5FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶50

“1. Whether respondent no.1 caused injuries to the claimant while driving his tanker No.HR-39-3216, in a rash and negligent manner? OPA.

¶51

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so the amount and from whom? OPA.

¶52

3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties? OPR-1 and 2.

¶53

4. Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-3.

¶54

5. Relief.”

¶55

10 . Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

¶56

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants Mrs. Anuradha Sethi, minor Baby Samridhi Sethi, and Sh. Madan Lal Sethi on account of the death of Sh. Satish Kumar Sethi in Claim petition No. 75. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation to claimant-Mrs. Anuradha Sethi on account of the death of infant Baby Arshia Sethi in Claim petition No. 75/1. A sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation to claimant-Mrs. Anuradha Sethi on account of injuries suffered by her in Claim petition No. 75/2. A sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded as compensation to minor claimant-Baby Samridhi Sethi on account of injuries suffered by her in Claim petition No. 75/3. All the aforesaid amounts were awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the respective claim petitions till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.

¶57

Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶58

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -6FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶60

The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO-1769-2003 and FAO-1767-2003 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation on account of the death of Sh. Satish Kumar Sethi and Baby Arshia Sethi which is grossly inadequate. In FAO-1769-2003, the deceased Sh. Satish Kumar Sethi was aged 41 years and earning Rs.97,500/- per month from export business but the Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants as just Rs.6,500/- and applied a multiplier of 13 instead of 14. It was further argued that appropriate compensation has not been awarded for future prospects, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. Learned counsel contended that in FAO-1767-2003, the deceased child was an infant of 8 months, and the Tribunal wrongly awarded a meager sum of

¶62

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -7FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶64

Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability, completely ignoring the immense shock and trauma suffered by the mother.

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO-1768-2003 and FAO-1770-2003 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation for injuries which is grossly inadequate. In FAO-17682003, the claimant Mrs. Anuradha Sethi, aged 34 years, had suffered multiple fractures of leg and jaw, disfigurement of face, loss of four teeth, and 15% permanent disability of left lower limb, for which a meager compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded. In FAO-1770-2003, minor Baby Samridhi Sethi, aged 12 years, suffered severe facial injuries, disfigurement, and 25% permanent disability, for which only a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been awarded. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, loss of amenities of life, and loss of marriage prospects, as per settled law. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned award is thus liable to be modified and the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4)

¶66

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -8FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶68

R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

¶69

alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.

¶70

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3Oriental Insurance Company argued that the award in question in all the petitions is well reasoned and justified. Learned counsel argued that the deceased was partner in two firms in which other family members including father and wife of the deceased were also partners and share of the deceased has been inherited by the claimants who are running both the firms and there is no loss in the income of the said firms and the profits which used to fall in the share of deceased cannot be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

¶71

It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeals and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeals have to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

¶72

Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-1769-2003, Anuradha Sethi and another Vs. Gurmail Singh and others , arising out of MACT Case No.75 of 06.12.1999 :-

¶73

While computing the compensation, learned Tribunal under Issue No.3 observed and held as under:-

¶74

“Now the question arises regarding the quantum. As per

¶75

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶77

-9-

¶78

case of claimants, Sh. Satish Sethi claimants was aged about 41 years at the time of his death. In post mortem report of Satish Sethi Ex.AW7/7, his age is mentioned to be 37 years. Therefore, I do not see any reasons to dis-believe the version of claimant, that he was aged about 41 years at the time of death in the accident. According to claimants, he was earning around Rs.99,500/- per month. To prove that they examined Sh. Rajnish Chahal Charted Accountant, Ludhiana as AW1, who stated that he knew Satish Sethi deceased, who was carrying on business as partner of M/s. V.S.knitwear. He had been auditing account of that concern for last about 12/13 years. Sh. Satish Sethi was partner in the firm in the capacity of H.U.F. He brought the audited balance sheet of the firm for the year 1997-98, 1988-89, financial year, stating that turn over for the year 1997-98 ending 31.3.98 of the firm M/s. V.S.Knitwear was Rs.1,98,63,367,26 Ps. Sh. Satish Sethi HUF was having 20% share in the firm and net profit earned by him was Rs.1,55,327.02 Ps. As per record Sh.Satish Sethi died on 27.6.1999. The turn over in the firm for the year 1998-99 ending 31.3.99 HUF was Rs.22,813139/ share of Satish Kumar Sethi HUF being Rs.901968.77 Ps. being the profit. The total profit upto 31.3.2000 from 1.4.1999 was Rs.1188652.98 ps. he added that upto 27.6.1999 entire business of the firm was being looked after by Satish Kumar Sethi and he used to come to him. This witness added that the firm is maintaining regular account books and balance sheets are prepared form the account books, which are correct. The firm was income tax assessee. He proved the copies of balance sheet as Ex.Al and Ex.A2, signed by him, bearing his stamps. Sh. Sautam Dass Singla, Charted

¶79

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶80

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶81

-10-

¶82

Accountant, Ludhiana, getting his statement recorded as AW2 stated that he knew Satish Kumar Sethi deceased, who was carrying on business in the name of Vishnu Narain Hosiery works, unit Catch Knits (India), Ludhiana and he had been auditing the accounts of that firm from 1993-94. He added that regular account books were being kept by the firm. Madan Lal Sethi, Neena Sethi, Vinod Kumar Sethi HUF and Satish Kumar Sethi were partners in the firm. The annual turn over of which upto 31.3.99 was Rs.6212650.00 and net profit to Satish Kumar Sethi was Rs.1,48,071.00. Satish Kumar Sethi was having 25% share in the firm and from 1.4.91 upto 31.3.2000 the total turn over was Rs.1690959.35 ps. and profit was Rs.1,91,843.22 Ps. of the whole firm. This witness added that the entire business was looked after and transacted by Satish Kumar Sethi during his life time and he died on 27.6.99. He proved the balance sheet for the year 1997-98 as Ex.AW2/1 and Ex.AW2/2, stating that those were prepared from the account books and are correct. Sh. Hari Datt Shariama, Superintendent, I.T.O., Ward No.1(3), Income Tax Department, Ludhiana, brought summoned record of M/s. Vishnu Narain Hoshery Works for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 stating that as per the record Madan Lal Sethi, Neena Sethi, Vinod Sethi HUF and Satish Kumar Sethi were partners during these years. Satish Kumar Sethi was partner in the individual capacity and profits earned by him as of 31.3.98 was Rs.4,43,684.40 Ps. during the financial year ending 31.3.98. He proved copy of balance sheet Ex.AW4/1, adding that as per record and balance sheet for the financial year ending 31.3.97 the profit earned by Satish Kumar Sethi was Rs.2,38,989.05 Ps. Copy of balance sheet being Ex.AW4/2. This witness also

¶83

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶84

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶85

-11-

¶86

brought the record pertaining to M/s. V.S.Knitwears relating to financial year ending on 31.3.98 and assessment year 1998-99 adding that Vinod Kumar Sethi, Anuradha Sethi and Satish Kumar Sethi were three partners. The profit earned by Satish Kumar Sethi for the financial year 1997-98 was Rs.5,11,327.02 ps. and profit earned by Satish Kumar Sethi for the financial year 1996-97 ending on 31.3.1997 was Rs.7,13,693.33 Ps. Copy of balance sheet being Ex.AW4/3. AW7 Anuradha Sethi stated that her deceased husband Satish Kumar Sethi was Managing partner in the firm M/s. V.S.Knitwear and M/s Vishnu Narain Hosiery works and his monthly income was approximately Rs.1 lakh. Her husband formed an HUF and said HUF known as Satish Kumar Sethi HUF was partner to the extent of 20%. She herself was having 30% share, Vinod Kumar Sethi was having 50% share in the firm. The annual net profit of the said firm for the year 1998-99 ending on 31.3.99 was Rs.4599843.84 Ps. which means that monthly income of the firm was approximately Rs.3,75,000/- out of which share of Satish Kumar Sethi HUF was Rs.75,164/- per month. She further added that Satish Kumar was having 25% share in his individual capacity in M/s. Vishnu Narain Hosiery and he was having net profit of Rs.20,872/- per month. That Satish Sethi and she used to look after the business of both the firms. After death of Satish Sethi business has nose dived. Her brother in law Vinod Kumar Sethi used to help her in the business, but now as a result of shock due to death of his brother Satish Kumar Sethi, he does not work. She is unable to work due to suffering injuries in the accident. The monthly income from the said two firms is now Rs.955/ only. The entire money standing in the name of her husband and

¶87

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶88

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶89

-12-

¶90

herself in the said two firms was in the shape of stocks, which was to be disposed off but due to death of Satish Sethi no business was conducted nor any goods were sold and all the "pending orders were cancelled. She has not been paid any amount from the firms and there is complete loss of stocks. She further added that M/s. V.S.Knitwears has taken loan from State Bank of India, Sunder Nagar, branch Ludhiana and monthly interest which is being debited to the account of the firm is more than Rs.10,000/-. As there is no income from the firm the interest increase. She proved copy of partnership deed dated 1.4.90 as Ex.AW7/1, copy of detail of income of Satish Kumar Sethi from Vishnu Narain Hosiery works Ex.AW7/2 income tax receipts Ex.AW7/3 and Ex.AW7/4. Statement of income of Satish Kumar Sethi in M/s. V.N.Hosiery Works Ex.AW7/5 for the year 1997-98, the year 1998-99 Ex.AW7/6, another receipt of income Ex.AW7/8, copy of partnership deed Ex.AW7/9. Statement of income and account Ex.AW7/10 and Ex.AW7/11. Sh. Suresh Kumar UDC Income Tax Department, Ward No.111-(40 Ludhiana, PW5, brought the summoned record pertaining to the firm M/s. Vishnu Narain Hosiery works and M/s V.S.Knitwear and that of assessee Satish Kumar Sethi. He stated that according to his record net profit as per profit and loss account of M/s. Vishnu Narain Hosiery Works for the year 1997-98 was Rs.955959/-. This firm had four partners namely Madan Lal Sethi. Neena Sethi, Vinod Kumar Sethi HUF and Satish Kumar Sethi. Share of Satish Kumar Sethi out of profit Rs.238989.85 Ps. in the partnership deed share of Satish Kumar Sethi is even as 25% in the firm. This witness added that in the year 1998-99 as per the return filed net profit of firm was Rs.1774737/-

¶91

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶92

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -13FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶93

and share of Satish Kumar Sethi being to the extent of 25% was Rs.443684.40 Ps. This witness further added that as per return for the year 1997-98 net profit of the firm M/s V.S.Knitwear in which Satish Kumar Sethi was having 25% share and Anuradha Sethi was having 30% share was Rs.3565466/- and as per the return filed for the assessment year 1998-99 net profit of the said firm was Rs.2556633/-in which Satish Kumar Sethi and Anuradha Sethi weге having 50% share. He proved copy of balance sheet as Ex.PW3/1, PW3/2, PW3/3 and PW3/4. He added that as per return of Satish Kumar Sethi HUF total income for the year ending 31.3.99 was Rs.65693/-.”

¶94

As already mentioned above, the record of the Tribunal has burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the compensation is to be assessed as per the aforesaid discussion of facts and evidence made by the Tribunal. From the evidence led before the Tribunal, it is established that deceased Sh. Satish Sethi was partner in two firms namely M/s. V.S. Knitwear to the extent of 20% and M/s Vishnu Narain Hosiery Works to the extent of 25%. The balance sheet, turn over and profit earned from both the firms have been led in evidence for the periods 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. However, deceased had died on 27.06.1999 and as such, the profits earned by him for the period 199798 shall be taken into consideration while assessing his monthly income. The most clinching evidence is that of AW Sh. Hari Datt Shariama, Superintendent, Income Tax Department and as per his testimony, deceased earned profit of Rs.5,11,327/- from the firm M/s. V.S. Knitwear

¶95

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶96

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -14FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶97

and a sum of Rs.4,43,684/- from M/s Vishnu Narain Hosiery Works for the financial year 1997-98 and the total profit earned by the deceased which fell in his share thus comes to Rs.9,55,011/- (Rs.5,11,327/- + Rs.4,43,684/-) (rounded off to Rs.9,55,000/-).

¶98

Now the point to be decided is as to whether the entire profits/income earned by deceased Sh. Satish Kumar Sethi from both the aforesaid firms should be taken into consideration while assessing his monthly income or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 888, S. Vishnu Ganga and Ors. Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has held that merely because claimants have stepped into the shoes of the deceased and are running the mill/firms does not negate the loss of income and the expertise. Merely because they have stepped into the shoes of deceased, by such factum itself, the claimants will not be capable of running the mill. It will be of relevance as to whether due to their lack of experience and maturity, real/expected downfall in the profitability of the firm or the business would ensue. Such factor, while considering a claim pertaining to loss of future income/earnings, would have to be dealt with. In this case, the deceased father was earning Rs.25,00,000/- per annum and deceased mother was earning Rs.20,00,000/- per annum and Tribunal had taken their notional income to be Rs.60,000/- per month while assessing the compensation but in the present case, deceased had filed income tax returns showing his annual income to be Rs.9,55,000/-. After his death, the business has been

¶99

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶100

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -15FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶101

inherited by the claimants which is being run by them and as such, notional income of the deceased has to be fixed by taking into consideration his managerial skills while running the business concerns and accordingly, monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.50,000/-

¶102

per month .

¶103

Since deceased was 41 years of age, 25% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his monthly income to Rs.62,500/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.12,500/-) and the annual income of deceased comes out to Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs.62,500/- x 12). Deceased was an income tax assessee and as such, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum is to be deducted from the annual income towards income tax and after deducting the same the total annual income thus comes out to Rs.5,50,000/- (Rs.7,50,000/- - Rs.2,00,000/-)

¶104

The claim petition was filed by wife, daughter and father of the deceased. As per law laid down in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309, Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors , father has to be treated as financially dependent upon his deceased son. As such, deceased has left behind three dependents and 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). After deducting the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,66,667/- (Rs.5,50,000/- - Rs.1,83,333/-). 23. Since deceased was 41 years of age, multiplier of 14 has to

¶105

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶106

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -16FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶107

be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.51,33,338/- (Rs.3,66,667/- x 14).

¶108

In addition to this, claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimant No.2 (daughter of the deceased) and father of the deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental and filial consortium, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra) , which takes the compensation to Rs.52,83,338/(Rs.51,33,338/- + Rs.1,50,000/-) .

¶109

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-

¶110

S.No.	Under Head
1.	Age of deceased	41 years
2.	Monthly income of deceased	Rs.50,000/-
3.	Future prospects @25%	Rs.12,500/-
4.	Total income	Rs.62,500/-
5.	Annual income of deceased	Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs.62,500/- x 12)
6.	Tax deduction	Rs.2,00,000/-
7.	Annual income after tax deduction	Rs.5,50,000/-
8.	Number of dependents	3
9.	Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd)	Rs.1,83,333/-
10.	Annual loss of dependency	Rs.3,66,667/-(Rs.5,50,000/- -Rs.1,83,333/-)
11.	Multiplier	14

¶111

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶112

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶113

-17-

¶114

12.	Compensation on account of Loss of dependency	Rs.51,33,338/- (Rs.3,66,667/- x 14)
13.	Compensation under conventional heads to claimant-wife	Rs.70,000/-
14.	Compensation to claimant No.2- (daughter) and father of the deceased for loss of parental and filial consortium	Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2)
	Total Compensation	Rs.52,88,000/-

¶115

Accordingly, appellants/claimants are held entitled to a sum

¶116

of Rs.52,88,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus

¶117

comes out to Rs.42,88,000/- (Rs.52,88,000/- - Rs.10,00,000/-) .

¶118

Analysis and assessment of Compensation in FAO-1767-2003, Anuradha Sethi Vs. Gurmail Singh And Others , arising out of MACT Case No.75/1 of 06.12.1999 :-

¶119

As per version of claimant-Anuradha Sethi, her daughter Arshia Sethi aged 8 months had died in the accident in question. The Tribunal observed that the deceased was an infant of only eight months and was not an earning member. It was held that any assessment regarding her future prospects or the financial contribution she might have made to the family would be purely speculative. While recognizing that the death of an infant causes irreparable emotional loss and immense trauma to the parents, the Tribunal noted that the deceased had not even started going to school and any assumption regarding her future achievements would be based on conjectures. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under the principle of no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with interest.

¶120

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶121

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -18FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶122

However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate.

¶123

Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 14756 of 2025 titled Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. vide judgment dated 15.12.2025, while distinguishing the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon , 2024, has held that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the claim for compensation stands on a different footing from cases relating to permanent disability suffered by a minor. Relying upon the principle laid down in (2013) 9 SCC 65, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for determining compensation in cases of fatal accidents involving minors, the appropriate multiplier is 15 and not 18, which was applied in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case(supra) in the context of permanent disability. Accordingly, in the present case, multiplier of 15 is liable to be applied for assessing the loss of dependency particularly because deceased was 8 months old infant.

¶124

Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon , has held that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have

¶125

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶126

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -19FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶127

to be taken into consideration while assessing income in the case of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In the present case, the deceased was an infant aged 8 months and the accident took place on 27.06.1999 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were around Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶128

Since deceased was 8 months old, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes her income to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-).

¶129

Deceased has left behind one dependent i.e. mother and accordingly, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). After deducting the same, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,100/- (Rs.4,200/- – Rs.2,100/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100/- × 12) to which multiplier of 15 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Devendra Kumar Tripathi’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.25,200/- × 15).

¶130

In addition to this, claimant (mother of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

¶131

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶132

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -20FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶133

Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) , which takes the compensation to Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.3,78,000/- + Rs.70,000/-).

¶134

Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:-

¶135

S.No.	Under Head
1.	Age of deceased	8 months
2.	Monthly income of deceased	Rs.3,000/- per month
3.	Future prospects @40%	Rs.1,200/-
4.	Total income	Rs.4,200/-
5.	Number of dependents	1
6.	Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (50%)	Rs.2,100/-
7.	Monthly loss of dependency	Rs.2,100/-
8.	Annual loss of dependency	Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100/- × 12)
9.	Multiplier	15
10.	Compensation on account of Loss of dependency	Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.25,200/- × 15)
11.	Compensation under conventional heads to claimant-mother	Rs.70,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.3,78,000/- + Rs.70,000/-)

¶136

Accordingly, appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of

¶137

Rs.4,48,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes

¶138

out to Rs.3,98,000/- (Rs.4,48,000/- - Rs.50,000/-) .

¶139

Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-1768-2003,

¶140

Anuradha Sethi Vs. Gurmail Singh And Others , arising out of MACT

¶141

Case No.75/2 of 06.12.1999 :-

¶142

As per version of the claimant, she had sustained multiple

¶143

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶144

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -21FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶145

injuries in the accident including head and facial injuries, fractures of the maxilla, mandible and left femur. She remained admitted at D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, from 27.06.1999 to 13.07.1999 and underwent orthopedic and plastic surgeries including fixation of jaw fractures. The claimant has also led in evidence the disability certificate Ex.AW3/2, which establishes that she had suffered 15% permanent disability of the left lower limb. The evidence further shows that she had suffered shortening of the left lower limb, facial disfigurement and loss of four lower teeth. She remained bedridden for over a year and was unable to carry on her normal work or business and incurred substantial medical and dental expenses, duly supported by medical records and bills.

¶146

The Tribunal after going through the material placed on file awarded her a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- and held as under:-

¶147

“In the instant case first coming to pecuniary damages taking up ahead the expenses incurred by claimant in respect of injury which may include medical expenses, special diet, or cost of nursing or attendant. The claimant has got proved in evidence her discharge summary as Ex. AW3/1, which goes to show that she was admitted in DMC Hospital on 27.6.99 and discharged on 13.7.99 and she was charged a sum of Rs.47,869/-. This document has been got proved from Dr.S.C.Ahuja, Principal and head of Department of Orthopedic D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. Dr. Vivek Saggar, Dental Surgeon stated that he had charged a Sum of Rs.17,000/-from Anuradha Sethi and fixed the denture. P.C.Sharma Accountant of Dutta Brothers proved bills Ex.Pl to Ex.P38, total amount of which being

¶148

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶149

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶150

-22-

¶151

Rs.10,741/-. The total amount when added comes out to Rs.75610/-. Such type of patient requires special diet and efforts put in by the relations friends or attendants are also to be taken into consideration. She was hospitalized for about 16 days. She was operated upon in the hospital for curing of fracture. It is not possible to retain all bills and cash memos for purchase of medicines and some guess work is involved in arriving at the probable figure. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta stated that Anuradha Sethi remained under his treatment for about two months and for about 1-1/2 months she was on liquid diet. As such I award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to her on account of special diet, cost of nursing, or attendant. Due to her hospitalisation, she could not attend to her work. On that account, I find it fair to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Coming to the head loss of earning capacity. Dr. S.C.Ahuja stated that Anuradha Sethi as a result of suffering injuries would be limbing whole of her life. He proved the disability certificate Ex.AW3/2, stating that she has got 15% disability. Thus on accout of loss of earning capacity a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to her. Now coming to the head non-pecuniary loss. Anuradha Sethi had suffered grievous hurts in the accident and she was hospitalised undergoing protracted and lengthy treatment and she must have undergone mental physical, shock, pain suffering. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to her for that. As a result of shortening of leg she would not be able to walk, run, sit and she is to be compensated for that. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to her. Since she had suffered disfigurement of her face due to loss of teeth and scars and there is loss of expectations of life, damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/- are awarded to her for that. Due to

¶152

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶153

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -23FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶154

inconvenience, hardship, discomfort and metal stress a further sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to her. Total amount being Rs.2,25,610/-. To make it round figure it would be Just and fair to grant compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-to claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim-petition, till actual realisation, payable by respondents no.1 to 3 jointly or severally.”

¶155

The claimant had suffered multiple injuries including head and facial injuries, fractures of the maxilla, mandible, left femur and shortening of leg. Besides this, her four teeth were also broken. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous which take a long time to heal. It must have taken at least one year for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶156

38. The claimant was partner in both the firms namely M/s. V.S. Knitwear and M/s Vishnu Narain Hosiery Works to the extent of 25% along with her husband and other family members and was managing the same towards managerial skills, her income is accordingly taken as Rs.10,000/- per month .

¶157

39. However, she had suffered 15% permanent disability on account of left lower limb with shortening of left lower limb, facial disfigurement and loss of four lower teeth. The claimant is running her own business and the disability suffered by her in relation to left lower

¶158

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶159

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -24FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶160

limb will not in any manner diminish her earning capability and in these circumstances, the compensation regarding loss of income due to permanent disability is not to be assessed. However, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- on account of permanent disability.

¶161

It must have taken at least 10 months for the injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to attend to her work and must have suffered loss of income and she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of ‘ loss of income during the period of

¶162

treatment’

¶163

During this period, she must have spent some amount in engaging an attendant and she is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head.

¶164

During this period, she must have spent some amount on transportation and special diet and she is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for transportation.

¶165

Claimant was 34 years of age. She has suffered 15% disability in relation to left lower limb with shortening of leg and she has also lost her four lower teeth. As such, she would have difficulty in walking, running and sitting and will not be able to lift any weight and chewing her meals. This disability is going to remain with her throughout her life. Accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘ loss of amenities ’.

¶166

The Tribunal has awarded her a sum of Rs.75,610/- for the

¶167

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶168

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -25FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶169

expenses incurred on treatment. She had suffered grievous injuries and was operated upon. Her teeth were also broken and she will have to get artificial teeth fixed which will also require periodic replacement. Accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of expenses to be incurred on future treatment and the total expenses to be incurred on future treatment thus comes out to Rs.1,25,610/(Rs.75,610/- + Rs.50,000/-)

¶170

Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is

¶171

assessed as under:-

¶172

Sr. No.	Head	₹ This Court ( )
1.	Compensation for permanent disability	Rs.60,000 /-
2.	Pain & sufferings	Rs.75,000 /-
3.	Transportation and special diet	Rs.17,000 /- (Rs.5,000/- +Rs.12,000/-)
4.	Attendant charges	Rs.20,000 /-
5.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	Rs.1,00,000 /-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.50,000/-
7.	Expenses to be incurred on future treatment	Rs.1,25,610/- (Rs.75,610/- + Rs.50,000/-
	Total	Rs.4,47,610 /- (rounded off to Rs.4,48,000/-)

¶173

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,48,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to

¶174

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶175

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -26FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶176

Rs.2,23,000/- (Rs.4,48,000/- - Rs.2,25,000/-).

¶177

Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-1770-2003, Samridhi Sethi Vs. Gurmail Singh And Others , arising out of MACT Case No.75/3 of 06.12.1999 :-

¶178

As per version of claimant, she had sustained multiple injuries in the accident including deep facial lacerations, fracture and loss of an upper front tooth, injuries to the upper jaw and other parts of the body. She remained admitted at D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, for treatment and thereafter continued treatment with various specialists. She asserted that she was left with permanent facial scars, an artificial tooth, persistent pain in the upper jaw, impaired vision requiring spectacles and difficulty in eating, chewing and sleeping. She further stated that the injuries adversely affected her studies, career prospects and day-to-day activities. The claimant also produced medical bills through the Accountant of Dutta Brothers Drug Store in support of the medical expenses incurred.

¶179

The Tribunal after going through the material placed on file awarded her a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and held as under:-

¶180

“Claimant is entitled to damages under pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. Under the pecuniary damages she is entitled to get expenses for her medical treatment. As per her discharge summary EX.AW4/3, she remained hospitalised at D.M.C., Ludhiana, from 27.6.99 to 29.6.99 and was charged a sum of Rs. 4,436/-. This bill was proved by AW4 Manoj Kumar, Record Keeper, DMC, Hospital, Ldh. Sh.P.K. Sharma, Accountant, Dutta Brothers Drug

¶181

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶182

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶183

-27-

¶184

Store, had proved bills EX.P1 to EX.P5 of the value of Rs. 660/-. The total expenditure comes out to Rs.4,436 + Rs. 660/- = Rs.5096/-. Some guess work is involved in grant of medical expenses because it is not possible to preserve each and every bill of purchase of medicines etc. Claimant appearing as AW2 stated that she had got an artificial tooth implanted. There are cut and scar marks on her face. She is suffering pain and she got treatment from various doctors. Taking notice of this fact I award a sum of Rs.20,000/- to her on account of medical expenses, which she would have reasonably incurred for getting treatment from various doctors and implanting artificial teeth. As a result of hospitalization and suffering injuries, her studies were effected. She had to start wearing spectacles. Her disability has been assessed as 25%. Since she is a student and not earning anything under the head loss of earning capacity which including incapability of earning in future years I award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to her. For special diet, cost of nursing etc. I award a sum of Rs.5,000/- to her. On account of suffering physical shock, pain, suffering, she is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and on account of compensation for loss of amenities of life, on account of suffering injuries a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to her, whereas since her marital prospects has been affected a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to her on that account and on acount of loss of expectations of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, a further sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to her. Thus, a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded to claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till actual realisation, payable by respondents no. 1 to 3 jointly or severally. Issue decided accordingly.”

¶185

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶186

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -28FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶187

However, in my considered opinion, adequate compensation has not been assessed under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as per the settled law. The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by victim in a motor vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a ‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief.

¶188

Besides this, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another , has held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads:-

¶189

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

¶190

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶191

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -29FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶192

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing expenditure. food and miscellaneous

¶193

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

¶194

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

¶195

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability

¶196

(iii) Future medical expenses.

¶197

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

¶198

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

¶199

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

¶200

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

¶201

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

¶202

¶203

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra)

¶204

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶205

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -30FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶206

while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case (supra), has held that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have to be taken into consideration while assessing income in the case of death of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) , a girl aged 6 years had died and taking into consideration the minimum wages for skilled workers in the year 2014 to be Rs.223 per day, annual income was assessed as Rs.80,280/- and thereafter, future prospects were applied and after applying multiplier of 18, the compensation was assessed.

¶207

52. In the present case, claimant was 12 years of age and the accident had taken place on 27.06.1999 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were around Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly, income of claimant is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month .

¶208

53. Claimant was 12 years of age on the date of accident. Accordingly, 40% of amount has to be added to her monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, her monthly income comes out to Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) .

¶209

Claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability, which will certainly diminish her earning capabilities and the avocation or

¶210

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶211

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -31FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶212

profession she will pursue. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which her earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited.

¶213

Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1050/(Rs.4200/- X 25%) and ‘ annual loss of income ’ will come out to Rs.12,600/- per annum (i.e. Rs.1,050/- X 12) .

¶214

As per the claim petition, claimant was 12 years of age and in view of the guidelines laid down in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra), the multiplier of 18 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.12,600/- X 18) on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability.

¶215

The claimant had suffered multiple injuries including deep facial lacerations, fracture and loss of an upper front tooth, weak vision injuries to the upper jaw and other parts of the body. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶216

During this period, she must have spent some amount in

¶217

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶218

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -32FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶219

engaging an attendant, transportation and special diet. She is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- under these heads.

¶220

Claimant was 12 years of age and this disability is going to remain with her throughout her life. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of ‘ loss of amenities ’.

¶221

Claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of marital prospects and Rs.20,000/- for expectation of life, discomfort, disappointment, inconvenience and hardship and the total comes out to Rs.40,000/-. However, the claimant is a young girl and in view of the nature of injuries suffered by her, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- under all these heads.

¶222

However, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded for medical expenses is adequate and no interference in the same is called for.

¶223

Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is

¶224

assessed as under:-

¶225

Sr. No.	Head	₹ This Court ( )
1.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	Rs.2,26,800/-
2.	Pain & sufferings	Rs.35,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Transportation, Attendant charges and special diet	Rs.7500/-
5.	Loss of marital prospects, loss of ex- pectation of life, discomfort, disap- pointment, inconvenience and hardship	Rs.75,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.25,000/-

¶226

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶227

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -33FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶228

Total Rs.3,89,300/- (rounded off to Rs.3,89,000/-)

¶229

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,89,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.3,89,000/- - Rs.1,25,000/-).

¶230

As a result of aforesaid discussion, all the aforesaid appeals are partly accepted with costs.

¶231

In FAO-1769-2003, claimants-Anuradha Sethi etc. are held entitled to a sum of Rs.42,88,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing o claim petition i.e. 06.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.7,50,000/along with proportionate interest be paid to father of the deceased, a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to appellant No.2 (daughter) while remaining amount be paid to appellant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest.

¶232

In FAO-1767-2003, appellant Anuradha Sethi is held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.

¶233

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶234

FAO-1769-2003 FAO-1767-2003 -34FAO-1768-2003 FAO-1770-2003

¶235

In FAO-1768-2003, appellant Anuradha Sethi is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.

¶236

In FAO-1770-2003, appellant Baby Samridhi Sethi is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.12.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.

¶237

Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

¶238

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. 71. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶239

16.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Priyanka Thakur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶240

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.20 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anuradha Sethi v. Gurmail Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Sethi v. Gurmail Singh

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

Pritam Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Mirnali Borah and Anr. Vs Ram Kumar Gujjar

Bhateri Vs Bimla

Satnam Kaur Vs Harpal Singh

Anuradha Sethi Vs Gurmail Singh

Rajbir Vs Raju Kumar and Ors.