Kaushlya etc. Vs Raju and Ors.

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife and parents of Makhan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 14.07.1999, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving jeep bearing registration No. HR-36-R-3687, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 03.01.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), being not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶15

Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellantsclaimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as

¶16

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

FAO-2954-2002

¶19

regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶20

In present case, learned Tribunal has awarded the following

¶21

compensation:

¶22

Income	Rs.1,800/-per month
Deduction	1/3^rd
Multiplier	16
Loss of dependency	Rs.2,30,400/- (Rs.1200 x 12 x 16)
Loss of consortium	Rs.5,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.4,600/-
Total compensation awarded	Rs.2,35,000/-

¶23

Appellants- claimants have claimed that the deceased was a tv

¶24

mechanic and earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. Kaushliya PW-4, wife of the deceased had reiterated that the deceased was a television repair mechanic and used to earn Rs.5,500/- per month. However, except for oral assertions, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led by appellants-claimants in order to prove pleaded income of Rs.5,500/- per month and pleaded vocation that deceased was running a TV repair shop. No experience certificate or vocational training certificate was produced on record to show that deceased was a skilled person, working as a mechanic. No documentary evidence has been led to prove vocation of deceased.

¶25

Learned Tribunal has rightly considered deceased to be ablebodied person and a casual unskilled worker. In absence of any evidence supporting oral claim that deceased was earning Rs.5,5000/- per month the income of deceased, therefore, needs to be taken equivalent to minimum wages payable to unskilled worker in the year 1999 at the time of accident. Minimum wages were Rs.1,901/- per month in year 1999 and accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,901/- per month.

¶26

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

FAO-2954-2002

¶28

-3-

¶29

Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has asserted that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to be added to the extent of 40% in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680 and deduction of 1/3^rd is required to be made towards personal expenses of deceased as deceased is survived by wife and parents. Appropriate amount of compensation needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of parental consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶30

In the present case income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.1,901/- per month as per minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in the year 1999. Deceased was aged about 25/26 years at the time of accident and accordingly multiplier of ‘17’ would be applicable while determining loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% towards future prospects needs 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. (supra) . Since the deceased is survived by three dependents i.e wife and parents deductions to the extent of 1/3rd towards personal expenses needs to be made. Appellantclaimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to compensation @ 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

¶31

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

-4-

¶33

FAO-2954-2002

¶34

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

¶35

said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶36

8. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under:-

¶37

Income	Rs.1,901/- per month	Rs.1,901/- per month
Future Prospects	40% (1901+760)	Rs.2,661/-
Deduction	1/3^rd (2661-887)	Rs.1,774/-
Multiplier	17	17
Total loss of	Rs.1,774x12x17	Rs.3,61,896/-
dependency
Loss of Estate		Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses		Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Spousal		Rs.40,000/-
consortium to
claimant No.1
Loss of filial	Rs.40,000x2	Rs.80,000/-
consortium to
claimant Nos. 2 & 3
Total Compensation		Rs.5,11,896/-
awarded in appeal
Total Compensation	Rs.2,35,000/-
awarded by the
Tribunal
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.5,11,896/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,35,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.2,76,896/-

¶38

Claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation except

¶39

under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss

¶40

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

FAO-2954-2002

¶42

-5-

¶43

of estate along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till its realization.

¶44

Appeal is accordingly, allowed in above terms.

¶45

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

¶46

(PARMOD GOYAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶47

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kaushlya etc. v. Raju and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlya etc. v. Raju 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

Shangara Singh Vs Suresh Chand

Malkiat Singh etc. Vs Jasbir Singh etc.

Archana Sharma & Jothers Vs Sharda Devi & Others

(O&M) Bhagwanti Vs Kartar Singh

Sultan Vs Smt. Sumitra & Ors.

Manphul Vs Bhag Singh & Ors.