Rajesh Kumar Vs Jagmail Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Kumar Vs Jagmail Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,68,400/- to the claimants in equal shares, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization.

Issue for consideration

Quantum of compensation: whether the claimants are entitled to just and fair compensation beyond the Tribunal's award, the findings on occurrence of the accident and negligence having attained finality. +2 more

Court's answer

Total compensation is assessed at Rs. 2,28,400/-; since the Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 60,000/-, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,68,400/-, payable in equal shares with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization; the appeal is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Taking the deceased's age as between 56 and 60 years, the appropriate multiplier is '9' in terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma.

Key takeaways

Services rendered by a homemaker have an economic value and cannot be ignored; the notional income of a homemaker must be assessed in a reasonable manner for determining loss of dependency.ratio¶37
Given the accident of March 2001, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 24,000/- per annum); adding 10% towards future prospects per Pranay Sethi, the annual income becomes Rs. 26,400/-.ratio¶38
With three claimant sons, one-third of the income is deducted towards the deceased's personal and living expenses; the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs. 17,600/-.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Claimants' FAO against the award dated 04.04.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, which had granted only Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- no-fault liability plus Rs. 10,000/- conventional heads) for the death of Lado Devi, a homemaker aged 56-60 years, killed on 15.03.2001 in a motorcycle accident caused by the respondent's rash and negligent driving. With occurrence and negligence undisputed, the Court reconsidered only quantum. Applying Sarla Verma (multiplier '9' for age 56-60), Pranay Sethi (10% addition for future prospects) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (parental consortium to children), the Court fixed the homemaker's notional income at Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 24,000/- p.a.), added 10% (Rs. 26,400/-), deducted one-third for three claimant sons (Rs. 17,600/-) and applied multiplier 9, giving loss of dependency of Rs. 1,58,400/-; plus parental consortium of Rs. 20,000/- each to the three sons (Rs. 60,000/-), funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- and loss of estate Rs. 5,000/-; total Rs. 2,28,400/-. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,68,400/- awarded, payable in equal shares with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. Appeal allowed and disposed of accordingly. (Deepak Gupta, J.; speaking/reasoned; not reportable.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

FAO-1829-2003

Rajesh Kumar and others

. . . . Appellants

Vs.

Jagmail Singh

. . . . Respondent

****

Reserved on:05.03.2026 Pronounced on: 07.03.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate, for

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 04.04.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, only on the aspect of quantum of compensation.

It is not in dispute that on 15.03.2001, a motor vehicular accident occurred involving motorcycle bearing registra/on No. HR-05-H-9585, which resulted in the death of Lado Devi. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said motorcycle by the respondent. Though the injured Lado Devi was immediately shi6ed to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claim pe//on was therea6er filed by her three sons seeking compensa/on from the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle.

The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia/on of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had indeed occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the respondent. However, while

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.07 13:51 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

FAO-1829-2003

2026:PHHC:034710

determining the compensa/on, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of ₹50,000/under the principle of no-fault liability and added ₹10,000/- under conven/onal heads, thereby assessing the total compensa/on at ₹60,000/- vide award dated 04.04.2003.

Aggrieved against the inadequacy of the compensa/on awarded, the claimants have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was about 56 years of age at the /me of the accident and though she was a homemaker, she was also contribu/ng to the family income by selling milk and saving approximately ₹3,000/- per month. It is argued that the contribu/on of a homemaker cannot be ignored and that the Tribunal commi=ed a serious error in awarding only the statutory amount under the nofault liability without properly assessing the loss of dependency.

It is further submi=ed that the compensa/on is required to be assessed in accordance with the se=led principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora�on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1249. According to the learned counsel, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed reasonably, appropriate addi/on towards future prospects should have been granted and compensa/on under conven/onal heads including consor/um should also have been awarded.

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has fairly not disputed the legal posi/on that the determina/on of compensa/on must be in conformity with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the par/es and has carefully perused the record.

As no/ced above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the respondent driver has a=ained finality and is not in dispute before this Court. The only issue

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.07 13:51 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

Page 2 of 4

FAO-1829-2003

2026:PHHC:034710

requiring considera/on is with respect to the just and fair compensa/on payable to the claimants.

The Tribunal no/ced that as per the post-mortem report the age of the deceased was about 60 years, whereas the claimants asserted that she was 56 years of age. Even if the age of the deceased is taken to be between 56 and 60 years, the appropriate mul/plier applicable would be ‘9’ in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra).

Although the deceased was a homemaker, it is now well se=led that the services rendered by a homemaker have an economic value and cannot be ignored while determining compensa/on. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the contribu/on of a homemaker to the family is invaluable and the no/onal income of such a person must be assessed in a reasonable manner for the purpose of determining loss of dependency.

Keeping in view the fact that the accident occurred in March 2001, it would be reasonable to assess the no/onal income of the deceased at least at ₹2,000/- per month, which comes to ₹24,000/- per annum. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addi/on of 10% towards future prospects is required to be made even in the case of self-employed persons or those having fixed income, par/cularly where the age of the deceased is between 50 to 60 years. Accordingly, a6er adding 10% towards future prospects, the annual income of the deceased comes to ₹26,400/-.

Since the claimants are three in number and are the sons of the deceased, deduc/on of one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be appropriate. A6er such deduc/on, the annual loss of dependency works out to ₹17,600/-.

Applying the mul/plier of ‘9’ in accordance with the age bracket of the deceased as prescribed in Sarla Verma (supra) , the total loss of dependency comes to ₹1,58,400/-.

In addi/on to the loss of dependency, the claimants are also en/tled to compensa/on under the conven/onal heads. In terms of the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) , the children of the deceased

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.07 13:51 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

Page 3 of 4

FAO-1829-2003

2026:PHHC:034710

are en/tled to parental consor/um. Having regard to the period of the accident, a sum of ₹20,000/- each is awarded to the three claimants towards parental consor/um, making a total of ₹60,000/- under this head. Further, a sum of ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

Consequently, the total compensa/on payable to the claimants is assessed as under:

Loss of dependency: ₹1,58,400/-

Parental consor/um: ₹60,000/-

Funeral expenses: ₹5,000/-

Loss of estate: ₹5,000/-

Total: ₹2,28,400/-.

Since the Tribunal had already awarded a sum of ₹60,000/-, the claimants would be en/tled to the enhanced compensa/on of ₹1,68,400/-.

Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The claimants shall be en/tled to the enhanced compensa/on of ₹1,68,400/-, which shall be payable to them in equal shares along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe//on /ll its actual realiza/on.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.03.2026 JUDGE �� Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

Uploaded on: 07.03.2026

VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.07 13:51 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh

Page 4 of 4