Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Anil Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Feb 2026FAO/2618/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; FAO-2618-2019 (O&M) & FAO-2496-2021 (O&M); Pankaj Jain, J.; decided 12.02.2026. Motor accident death compensation - deceased Dharambir. Quantum per quoted award: income Rs. 27,000/- p.m.; 15% future prospects per National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009; 50% deduction (claimants major sons, non-dependents); multiplier 11 (age above 50); Rs. 20,46,000/- plus Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses = Rs. 20,76,000/- jointly and severally. Parties: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Anil Kumar, Satish Kumar. Supplied judgment text is truncated - no operative reasoning or final order of the High Court is present.

What the court decided

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Anil Kumar and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FAO-2618-2019 (O&M)

¶2

FAO-2496-2021 (O&M)

¶3

125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited ….Appellant Versus

¶5

Anil Kumar & ors. ….Respondents

¶6

Anil Kumar & anr. ….Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Satish Kumar & anr. ….Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

¶11

Present :- Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the appellantfor respondent No.2-

¶12

Mr. K.K.Saini, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellantfor respondents No.1 & 2-

¶13

¶14

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

POOJA SHARMA 2026.02.19 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

FAO-2618-2019 (O&M)

¶18

FAO-2496-2021 (O&M)

¶19

2 FAO-2496-2021

¶20

“14. Keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case income of the deceased is presumed to be 27,000/- per month. Age of deceased was about 52 years. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, 15% of the income is to be added for future prospectus. Therefore, income of Dharambir (since deceased), at the time of his death, is presumed to be 27,000+4,000=31,000/-, which comes to 31,000 x 12= 3,72,000/- per annum. Both the petitioners are major sons of the deceased and it can not be said that they were dependents on the deceased. Therefore, half of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, loss of income comes to 1,86,000/per annum. Since age of Dharambir (since deceased) was more than

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

POOJA SHARMA 2026.02.19 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

FAO-2618-2019 (O&M)

¶24

FAO-2496-2021 (O&M)

¶25

50 years, multiplier of 11 is applicable. By applying the multiplier of 11, total loss of income comes to ₹1,86,000×11=20,46,000/-only.

¶26

15. Besides, a sum of 15,000/- for loss of estate and a sum of 15,000/for loss of funeral expenses are also allowed to the petitioners. Therefore, it is concluded that petitioners are entitled to receive compensation of 20,46,000+15,000 +15,000= 20,76,000/- on account of death of their father Dharambir in a road side accident recoverable from the respondents jointly and severally.”

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

POOJA SHARMA 2026.02.19 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

FAO-2618-2019 (O&M)

¶30

FAO-2496-2021 (O&M)

¶31

( PANKAJ JAIN ) 12.02.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No