Allowed¶31

Seema and Others v. Jagbir Singh and Ors.

Motor Accidents – Enhancement

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2026FAO/3000/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, FAO-3000-2021 (O&M), Justice Archana Puri, decided 20.03.2026 - enhancement of MACT compensation for death in motor accident; parental/filial/spousal consortium; Magma General Insurance vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram; National Insurance vs. Pranay Sethi; Rs.44,000/- plus 6% interest to mother Koshlya; deceased Shri Niwas; Bolero HR-11K0438; driver Jagbir Singh; appellants Seema and others; advocates Naveen Siwach and Punit Jain.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed to the extent that appellant-claimant No.4 (Koshlya, mother of the deceased) is awarded Rs.44,000/- under 'loss of consortium', with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the enhanced amount. ¶31

Seema and Others Vs Jagbir Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the mother of the deceased (appellant-claimant No.4, Koshlya) is entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of consortium', which the Tribunal had denied to her, the appellants having conceded the Tribunal's computation on other heads.

¶20

Court's answer

Applying Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, compensation under 'loss of consortium' is payable to all claimants/dependents, whether 'filial', 'spousal' or 'parental', comprehending 'loss of love and affection'; therefore appellant-claimant No.4 (mother of the deceased) is also entitled to compensation under this head.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Taking the Pranay Sethi base amount of Rs.40,000/- enhanced by 10% (i.e., Rs.44,000/-, the same amount paid to the other claimants), appellant-claimant No.4-Koshlya Devi is entitled to Rs.44,000/- as 'loss of consortium'.

¶29

Key takeaways

The enhanced amount of Rs.44,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents - Enhancement - Loss of consortium to parent: Appeal by the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased (Shri Niwas, aged about 29, killed on 10.03.2019 by rash/negligent driving of Bolero No.HR-11K0438 by respondent No.1) sought enhancement of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Counsel conceded the Tribunal's computation (income Rs.8,800/- p.m.; dependency Rs.18,84,960/- with multiplier 17) and confined the claim to 'loss of consortium' denied to the mother. Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (base Rs.40,000/- plus 10% escalation = Rs.44,000/-) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (consortium payable to all dependents - filial, spousal or parental - comprehending loss of love and affection), the Court held the mother entitled to Rs.44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Appeal allowed to that extent.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

FAO-3000-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 20, 2026

Seema and others

...Appellants

VERSUS

Jagbir Singh and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶9

Present: Mr.Naveen Siwach, Advocate for the appellants (through Video Conferencing).

¶10

Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶11

¶12

ARCHANA PURI, J.

¶13

The present appeal has been filed by the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Shri Niwas, in a motor vehicular accident.

¶14

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶15

Suffice to consider that the accident had taken place on 10.03.2019. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place, on account of rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing registration No.HR-11K0438, driven by respondent No.1-Jagbir Singh and the same resulted into death of Shri Niwas.

¶16

VINEET GULATI 2026.03.24 08:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

FAO-3000-2021

¶18

-2-

¶19

Also further, it is not now disputed that deceased was about 29 years old, at the time of his death. Though, it was pleaded case of the appellants-claimants about the deceased to be working as Mobile Tower mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but however, no satisfactory evidence, relating to the same, came on record. On account of paucity of evidence, learned Tribunal had considered the earnings of the deceased Rs.8800/- per month, while taking into consideration the earnings of the unskilled worker, to be to the extent of Rs.8827/- per month.

¶20

Counsel for the appellants submits that he does not dispute about the extent of earnings of the deceased and the calculation done thereupon, but however, he confines his prayer for enhancement, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’, which was denied to Koshlya, mother of the deceased.

¶21

Considering the findings recorded on issue No.2, it is evident that while taking the earnings of the deceased as Rs.8800/- per month, annual whereof is Rs.1,05,600/- and considering the age of the deceased as 29 years, 40% was made, on the count of ‘future prospects’ and the amount was worked upon as Rs.1,05,600+42,240=Rs.1,47,840/-. 1/4th was deducted on the count of ‘personal expenses’ and the loss of dependency was worked upon as Rs.1,47,840-36,960=Rs.1,10,880/-. Multiplier of ‘17’ was applied and the total amount, on the count of loss of dependency was Rs.1,10,880x17=Rs.18,84,960/-.

¶22

Besides the aforesaid, an amount of Rs.44,000/- was awarded, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’ to the widow as well as minor children of the deceased, the total whereof was Rs.1,32,000/-. However, it was denied to Koshlya, mother of the deceased, who is appellant-claimant No.4. Further,

¶23

on the count of ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’, an amount of

¶24

VINEET GULATI 2026.03.24 08:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

FAO-3000-2021

¶26

-3-

¶27

Rs.16,500/- each was awarded.

¶28

However, as per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 , the base amount for the ‘loss of consortium’ is Rs.40,000/-, which was to be enhanced to the extent of 10%, after every three years of passing of the judgment and at the relevant time of passing of the Award, it was Rs.44,000/- and the same was denied to the mother of the deceased. However, while considering Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130 , the compensation, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’ is to be paid to all claimants/dependents, be it ‘filial’, ‘spousal’ or ‘parental’, which also comprehends ‘loss of love and affection’. Considering the same, appellant-claimant No.4 is also entitled to compensation, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶29

At the relevant time of decision of the claim petition, on the count of ‘loss of consortium’, while taking the base amount as Rs.40,000/and making addition of 10%, after passing of the judgment, the amount payable comes to be Rs.44,000/-, as paid to the other claimants. Considering the same, appellant-claimant No.4-Koshlya Devi is also entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs.44,000/- and she shall also be entitled to the interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization of the enhanced amount of compensation.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid observations, to the extent aforesaid,

¶31

the present appeal stands allowed.

¶32

March 20, 2026 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

VINEET GULATI 2026.03.24 08:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Seema and Others v. Jagbir Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema and Others v. Jagbir 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

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Sahib Singh

Sarika Rani Vs Ashwani Kumar

(O & M)Dharam Pal Vs Ishwar Devi

Ritu Vs Sandeep

Shameena and Anr. Vs Manjit Singh and Ors.

Ravinderpal Singh Vs Kanwarjit Singh