Neeta Devi and Others Vs Gurmeet and Others

For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 51 days in re-filing and 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed off.

¶11

FAO-2927-2019 (O&M)

¶12

Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 02.08.2018 on account of death of Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 07.08.2017.

¶13

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are

¶14

not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

¶15

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

FAO-2927-2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

¶19

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹8,280/-
2	Future Prospects-40%	₹11,600/-
3	Deduction-1/4th	₹8,700/- [₹11,600 - ₹2,900]
4	Annual Income by applying the multiplier of 15	₹15,66,000/- [₹8,700 x 12 x 15]
5	Loss of Consortium	₹40,000/-
6	Loss of Estate	₹15,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹15,000/-
	Total Compensation	₹16,36,000/-
	Interest	6% per annum

¶20

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

¶21

he does not challenge the income, deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] .

¶22

Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent No.3Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

¶25

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

FAO-2927-2019

¶27

-3-

¶28

Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. However, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra) hence, the claimant-appellant would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as

¶29

under :

¶30

Sr. No.	Heads	Compen	sation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹8,280/-
2	Annual Income	₹99,360/-	[₹8,280 x 12]
3	Deduction-1/4^th	₹74,520/-	[₹99,360 - ₹24,840]
4	Future Prospects-40%	₹1,04,328/-	[₹74,520 + ₹29,808]
5	Multiplier-15	₹15,64,920/-	[₹1,04,328 x 15]
6	Loss of estate	₹18,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	₹18,000/-
8	Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 3] (ii) Filial [₹48,000/- x 1] (iii) Spousal's	₹1,44,000/- ₹48,000/- ₹48,000/- (Total ₹2,40,0	00/-)
	Total Compensation	₹18,40,920/-

¶31

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded

¶32

by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

¶33

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

FAO-2927-2019

¶35

-4-

¶36

In view of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567] , after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the percentage directed by the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-appellants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter alongwith upto-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the present appeal stands allowed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶38

04.02.2026 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE

¶39

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶40

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Neeta Devi and Others v. Gurmeet and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeta Devi and Others v. Gurmeet and Others

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

Hsiidc Vs Kalawati @ Chander Kala and Ors.

Sachin Arora Vs Satpal Arora and Ors.

Sanjeev Bhardwaj Vs Sarvesh Kumar Jindal and Others

Sunita and Others Vs Gurmeet and Others

Dalwinder Singh and Anr. Vs Jagdip Singh

Krishna and Anr. Vs Ram Dhan Manchanda and Ors.