Savitri Devi & Ors. Vs Channa Ram & Ors.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 15.12.2016 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.10.2014.

¶12

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

¶13

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

¶14

compensation :

¶15

Sr.No.	Heads	Compe	nsation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹11,134/-
2	Annual Income	₹1,33,608/-	[₹11,134 x 12]
3	Deduction-50%	₹66,804/-	[₹1,33,608 - ₹66,804]
4	Multiplier-7	₹4,67,628/-	[₹66,804 x 7]
5	Funeral expenses	₹25,000/-
6	Loss of consortium to appellant No.1	₹1,00,000/-

¶16

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶17

FAO-2928-2017 (O&M)

¶18

2

¶19

7	Loss of love and affection to appellant Nos.2 and 3	₹50,000/-
8	Total Compensation	₹6,42,628/-
	Interest	9%

¶20

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

¶21

he does not challenge the income and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the Tribunal has wrongly applied a deduction of 50% inasmuch as there are three claimants being widow and two children of the deceased and, hence, a deduction of 1/3^rd ought to have been applied. It is further the contention of the learned counsel 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 support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 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 respondent No.3-Insurance 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 Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income and multiplier as applied by

¶25

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶26

FAO-2928-2017 (O&M)

¶27

3

¶28

the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly. However, a deduction of 50% has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal inasmuch as in the present case there are three claimants being widow and two children of the deceased, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/3^rd would be applicable instead of 50%. On the aspect of future prospects, the age of the deceased was admittedly 63 years at the time of accident, hence, no loss of future prospects is to be awarded in terms of the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, 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 claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/(₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimants (widow and two children of the deceased) would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

¶29

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	₹11,134/-
2	Annual Income	₹1,33,608/-[₹11,134 x 12]
3	Deduction-1/3^rd	₹89,072/- [₹1,33,608 - ₹44,536]
4	Multiplier-7	₹6,23,504/-[₹89,072 x 7]
5	Loss of estate	₹18,000/-
6	Funeral expenses	₹18,000/-
7	Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 2] (ii) Spousal's	₹96,000/- ₹48,000/- (Total ₹1,44,000/-)
	Total Compensation	₹8,03,504/-

¶30

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶31

FAO-2928-2017 (O&M)

¶32

4

¶33

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

¶34

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 direction of the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimants 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 up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

¶35

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

¶36

( ALKA SARIN )

¶37

02.02.2026 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶38

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

¶39

YOGESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

Savitri Devi & Ors. v. Channa Ram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi & Ors. v. Channa Ram & 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

Ram Phal Vs Manbir Singh

Vijay Kumar Vs Mahesh Kumar

Jasbir Singh Vs Chand Kaur and Others

Manpreet Kaur @ Amandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs Hardayal and Ors.

Satish Chand and Others Vs Piara Singh and Others

Priyansh Vs Vijay Kumar and Another