Gurmail Kaur and Anr. Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are the parents of Dhanwant Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.08.1999, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving tempo bearing registration No. PB-13F-5720, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 17.01.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), being not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶13

Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellantsclaimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶14

In present case, learned Tribunal has awarded the following

¶15

SMRITI 2026.07.15 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶16

FAO-2034-2002 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

compensation:

¶19

Income	Rs.3,000/-
Deduction	1/3^rd
multiplier	5
Annual dependency	Rs.1,20,000/-
	(Rs.2,000x12x5)
Funeral expenses	Rs.5,000/-
Total compensation awarded	Rs.1,25,000/-

¶20

It is the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased aged 21 years old at the time of accident, was working as an electrician and cable operator, earning about Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from the oral assertions made by CW-2, Gurmail Kaur, the mother of the deceased, the appellants-claimants also examined Gurcharan Singh CW-3, who was the owner of the shop which the deceased had taken on rent to run business of cable operator and electrician. CW-3 deposed that deceased was an electrician as well as doing cable business and was paying Rs.200/- per month as rent to CW-3.

¶21

The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence of CW-2 mother of deceased and CW-3 Gurcharan Singh, concluded that the oral testimony regarding business of deceased of cable has not been proved. It has been concluded that the appellants-claimants failed to prove the pleaded income and vocation of the deceased, accordingly, treated him as skilled worker, assessed his monthly income as Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶22

On consideration I do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence led by the appellants-claimants does not justify the income and vocation of the deceased as pleaded by the appellants-claimants.

¶23

SMRITI 2026.07.15 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

-3-

¶25

FAO-2034-2002 (O&M)

¶26

The income of deceased as taken by the learned Tribunal is upheld. Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken Rs.3,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was 21 years of age, unmarried and is survived by his parents, who were his only dependents. Keeping in view age of deceased, multiplier of ‘18’ shall be applicable while determining loss of dependency as per the judgment of ‘ Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% towards future prospects ought to be added to the income of the deceased in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, 2017 (16) SCC 680. Deceased is survived by his parents and was unmarried, therefore, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The loss of dependency has to be calculated keeping in view all above relevant factors and by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to loss of filial compensation @ Rs.40,000/-, each. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶27

8. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-

¶28

Income	Rs.3,000/-	Rs.3,000/-
	per month	per month
Future Prospects	40% (3000+1200)	Rs.4,200/-

¶29

SMRITI 2026.07.15 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶30

-4-

¶31

FAO-2034-2002 (O&M)

¶32

Deduction		50% (4200-2100)	Rs.2,100/-
Multiplier		18	18
Total loss dependency	of	Rs.2,100x12x18	Rs.4,53,600/-
Loss of Estate			Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expense	s		Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium claimant No.1&	filial to 2	Rs.40,000x2	Rs.80,000/-
Total Compen awarded in appe	sation al		Rs.5,63,600/-
Total Compen awarded by Tribunal	sation the	Rs.1,25,000/-
Enhanced amou compensation	nt of	Rs.5,63,600/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.1,25,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.4,38,600/-

¶33

Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate. Under these heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE

¶36

13.07.2026 smriti

¶37

Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶38

SMRITI 2026.07.15 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Gurmail Kaur and Anr. v. Darshan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmail Kaur and Anr. v. Darshan Singh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh

Mithu Khan & Anr. Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Sunita and Ors. Vs Rajiv Kumar and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Hira Singh

(O&M) Iqbal Kaur etc. Vs the Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.

Ram Singh Vs Parmod Kumar and Ors.