Rajinder Singh Vs Iqbal Singh

The pre s ent appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 2 2 .05.2001 passed by the learne d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, limited to the question of inadequacy o f compensation.

¶15

Th e facts are not in dispute. Surin d er Pal Singh, aged about 22 ye a rs and unmarried , lost his life in a motor vehic u lar accident, which occurred o n 02.07.1998 du e to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration N o. PB-11-H-7605. The mother of the deceased had predeceased him. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Ve h icles Act, 1988 was filed by h is father Rajinde r Singh, brother, widowed s i ster-in-law (Bhabhi) and mi n or nephews, asse r ting themselves to be legal representatives and dependents of the deceased.

¶16

Th e learned Tribunal recorded a f inding that there was no cog e nt evidence regar d ing the income of the decease d . It further held that the broth e r, sister-in-law a n d minor nephews could not b e treated as dependents and t h at no evidence o f dependency was led by the m . On that premise, the Tribu n al confined the c ompensation to a sum of ₹ 5 0,000/- under no-fault liabili t y,

¶17

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page N: 1 of 4

¶19

FAO No. 3185 of 2001

¶20

payable jointly and severally by the driver, o w ner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶21

Le a rned counsel for the appellan t s has assailed the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal fell into a s erious error in law by restricting compensation t o no-fault liability merely on t he ground that dependency w as not proved. It i s contended that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the right to claim compensation vests in t h e “legal representatives” of the deceased and not merely in dependents. R e liance has been placed on the judgment of th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. 2020 AIR (SC) 434 to sub m it that even non-dependent le g al representative s are entitled to maintain a clai m petition and seek compensati o n as per law.

¶22

Le a rned counsel further submits that even assuming that the brother, sister- i n-law and nephews may not q u alify as dependents, the father of the deceased, n amely Rajinder Singh, unquest i onably falls within the expressi o n “legal represe n tative” and is entitled to compensation determined un d er Section 166 of t he Act and not confined to no- f ault liability.

¶23

Le a rned counsel for the Insuranc e Company could not dispute the legal position t h at the father of the deceased i s a legal representative within the meaning of S e ction 166 of the Act and is entitled to compensation to be computed in accordance with settled principle s .

¶24

In v iew of the above, this Court h o lds that appellant Rajinder Sin g h, father of the d e ceased, is entitled to compen s ation as a legal representative of the deceased S urinder Pal Singh. The appr o ach adopted by the Tribunal in restricting com p ensation to no-fault liability is l egally unsustainable.

¶25

Coming to the determination o f quantum, the deceased w as admittedly 22 y ears of age and unmarried. Th e educational qualifications of the deceased stan d established on record. He had passed B.A. (Hons.) in Economics from Punjabi University, Patiala and had also c leared Master of Journalism and Mass Communication (Part-I), with Part-II rem a ining. The income was pleaded to

¶26

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Page N: 2 of 4

¶28

FAO No. 3185 of 2001

¶29

be ₹4,000/- per month, however, no docum e ntary evidence was produced to substantiate th e same.

¶30

P W -5 Gurinder Pal Singh depose d that the deceased worked as an Insurance Age n t under him and earned com m ission of about ₹1,500/- ove r a period of 7-8 m onths. In the absence of doc u mentary proof, this testimony at best establishe s a modest earning capacity. P W -6 Joginder Singh stated that the deceased was w orking as a part-time electricia n earning ₹1,500/- per month, b ut again without d ocumentary corroboration.

¶31

In the absence of reliable proo f of actual income, the Court is required to as s ess the notional income havi n g regard to the age, educatio n al qualifications and earning potential of the deceased. Considering the qualifications o f the deceased and the prevailing circumstances, and as fairly suggested by learned counsel for the app e llants and not opposed by the Insurance Com p any, the notional income is as s essed at ₹2,500/- per month, i.e. ₹30,000/- per annum.

¶32

As the deceased was below the a g e of 40 years, an addition of 4 0 % towards future prospects is warranted in vie w of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi . Accordin g ly, the annual income is enhan c ed to ₹42,000/-.

¶33

Th e deceased being unmarried and only the father being h e ld entitled to co m pensation, 50% of the income is liable to be deducted towa r ds personal and living expenses. Consequently, the annual loss of depende n cy works out to ₹ 2 1,000/-.

¶34

Th e deceased was 22 years of a g e at the time of accident. As p er the multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma , the appropriate multiplier is 1 8. Applying the said multiplier, the total loss of d e pendency comes to ₹3,78,000/ - . 14. Having regard to the fact that t h e accident occurred in the y e ar 1998, a sum of ₹5,000/- each is awarded to w ards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Addi t ionally, the father of the decea s ed is entitled to filial consortium, which is assess e d at ₹12,000/-.

¶35

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page N: 3 of 4

¶37

FAO No. 3185 of 2001

¶38

Th u s, the total compensation pay a ble comes to ₹4,00,000/-. Sinc e a sum of ₹50,000/- has already been awarde d by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation w orks out to ₹3,50,000/-.

¶39

Ac c ordingly, the appeal is partly a llowed. Appellant Rajinder Sin g h, father of the deceased, shall be entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7 .5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The liability of the respondents shall be joint and sever a l. The appeal stands disposed o f in the above terms.

¶40

			(DEEPAK GUPTA)
29.01.2026			JUDGE
*Jiten*
	Wh Wh ether speaking/reasoned ether reportable	: Yes/No : Yes/No

¶41

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Page N: 4 of 4

Rajinder Singh v. Iqbal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh v. Iqbal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Devi Vs Daulat Ram and Others

Dev Raj Vs Pala Ram and Others

Gurdeep Singh Vs Nachhattar Singh

Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Haryana and Others

(O&M) Sarwan Singh Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others

Piara Singh (Gram Sewak) Now Deceased through Lr Vs Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and Others