Saroj Devi &Ors Vs Teja Ram and Ors.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking modifica4on of the award dated 27.01.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereina8er referred to as “the Tribunal”), limited to the aspect of quantum of compensa4on.

¶16

The facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 31.10.2000, Jitender Kumar lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, while travelling in bus No. RJ-07-P-1586 from Bikaner to Jaisalmer. The accident occurred when the said bus, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a sta4onary truck. It has also come on record that despite repeated requests by passengers to drive cau4ously, the driver failed to do so, ul4mately resul4ng in the fatal accident.

¶17

The widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased ins4tuted a claim pe44on under Sec4on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa4on on account of his un4mely death from the drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles involved.

¶18

YOGESH MEHTA 4. Upon apprecia4on of oral as well as documentary evidence, 2026.03.27 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and

¶19

integrity of this document the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident was

¶20

FAO-1781-2003 [2]

¶21

solely aDributable to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Consequently, respondents No.1 to 3, i.e., the driver, owner and insurer of the bus, were held jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal assessed the compensa4on at ₹7,74,500/- along with interest.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award primarily on the ground that the compensa4on awarded is grossly inadequate. It is contended that the deceased, aged about 28–29 years, was serving as a Constable in the Border Security Force and earning ₹5,540/- per month. Being a permanent government employee, he had a stable source of income and, therefore, an addi4on towards future prospects ought to have been made. It is further argued that the mul4plier applied is not in consonance with seDled principles of law and that the amounts awarded under conven4onal heads are on the lower side.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel for the insurance company does not dispute the age, occupa4on and income of the deceased as recorded by the Tribunal.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the par4es and perused the record, this Court finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. The law rela4ng to assessment of compensa4on in cases of death has been authorita4vely seDled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na�onal Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017(16) SCC 680, wherein it has been held that in the case of a deceased having a permanent job and below the age of 40 years, an addi4on of 50% of the established income is to be made towards future prospects.

¶25

In the present case, the deceased was a government servant aged below 30 years. Thus, addi4on of 50% towards future prospects is clearly warranted. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is recalculated as under:

¶26

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.27 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

� Monthly income: ₹5,540/-

¶28

FAO-1781-2003 [3]

¶29

Annual income: ₹66,480/-

¶30

A8er adding 50% towards future prospects: ₹99,720/-

¶31

Since there are five dependents, deduc4on towards personal and living expenses is required to be made to the extent of 1/4th, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and others vs. DTC and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. A8er such deduc4on, the annual loss of dependency comes to ₹74,790/-.

¶32

The deceased being in the age group of 25–30 years, the appropriate mul4plier applicable is 17. Applying the said mul4plier, the loss of dependency works out to be : ₹74,790/- × 17 = ₹12,71,430/-.

¶33

In addi4on to the loss of dependency, the claimants are also en4tled to compensa4on under conven4onal heads. Keeping in view the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2000, a sum of ₹20,000/- each is awarded towards loss of consor4um (spousal, parental and filial) to all five claimants, totaling ₹1,00,000/-. Further, a sum of ₹10,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

¶34

Thus, the total compensa4on payable to the claimants is computed as under:

¶35

Loss of dependency : ₹12,71,430/-

¶36

� Consor4um : ₹1,00,000/� Funeral expenses : ₹10,000/-

¶37

� Loss of estate : ₹10,000/� Total : ₹13,91,430/-

¶38

A8er deduc4ng the amount of ₹7,74,500/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa4on comes to ₹6,16,930/-, which is rounded off to ₹6,17,000/-.

¶39

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The

¶40

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.27 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

¶42

FAO-1781-2003 [4]

¶43

appellants are held en4tled to an enhanced compensa4on of ₹6,17,000/over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

As regards appor4onment, it is directed that out of the enhanced amount, ₹50,000/- each shall be paid to the parents of the deceased (appellants No.4 and 5) along with propor4onate interest. The remaining amount of ₹5,17,000/- shall be equally appor4oned amongst the widow and two minor children (appellants No.1 to 3) along with propor4onate interest.

¶45

The enhanced compensa4on shall be payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe44on 4ll realiza4on.

¶46

The award of the Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. All pending applica4ons, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶47

24.03.2026		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:-	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:-	Yes/No

¶48

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.27 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Saroj Devi &Ors v. Teja Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi &Ors v. Teja Ram and Ors.

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

Smt Rakaiya and Ors. Vs State Ofh Aryana

Baba Gahre Shah Parbhandak Committee Vs Laldin @ Goga and Others

(O&M) Tara Chand and Ors. Vs Rameshwar and Ors.

Dilbagh Singh Vs Gurcharan Singh and Anr.

Prithi Singh and Others Vs Hari Ram

Smt.Sangita Walia Vs Jaswant Singh