Smt.Sumitra Widow of Deceased Balbir Sin Vs Angrej Singh

The claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensa(on by way of modifica(on of the award dated 10.05.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar.

¶13

The claim pe((on under Sec(on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was ins(tuted on account of the death of Balbir Singh, who sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident dated 19.06.1999 involving truck No. HR-37-2745. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by respondent No.1, Angrej Singh. The claimants, being the widow and three minor children of the deceased, sought compensa(on for the un(mely demise of the sole breadwinner of the family.

¶14

The claim pe((on was contested by the respondents. Upon apprecia(on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a

¶15

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.30 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO-3234-2001

¶17

categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded a total compensa(on of ₹14,60,000/- in favour of the claimants, along with interest, fastening joint and several liability upon the respondents.

¶18

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensa(on so awarded, the claimants have approached this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was employed as a Senior Salesman with KRIBHCO Ltd., a public sector undertaking, and was earning a monthly salary of ₹11,849/- at the (me of his death. It is submi@ed that the deceased was 37 years of age and in permanent employment; and therefore, an addi(on of 50% towards future prospects was mandatory in view of the law laid down in Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶20

It is further contended that the appropriate mul(plier, considering the age of the deceased, ought to have been ‘15’, and deduc(on towards personal expenses should have been restricted to onefourth, there being four dependents. According to the learned counsel, these se@led principles have not been properly applied by the Tribunal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the insurance company has not been able to controvert the aforesaid submissions.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the par(es and perused the record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the deceased was 37 years of age, was in permanent employment, and was earning ₹11,849/per month. In view of these admi@ed facts and the se@led posi(on of law, the compensa(on requires to be re-assessed.

¶23

Accordingly, the loss of dependency is re-calculated as under:

¶24

Page No. 2 of 3 Pages

¶25

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.30 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO-3234-2001

¶27

Monthly income : ₹11,849/-

¶28

Annual income : ₹1,42,188/-

¶29

� Addi(on of 50% towards future prospects : ₹2,13,282/-

¶30

Deduc(on of one-fourth towards personal expenses : ₹53,320.5/-

¶31

� Annual loss of dependency : ₹1,59,961.5/-

¶32

� Mul(plier :15

¶33

Total Loss of dependency : ₹23,99,422.5/-

¶34

In addi(on to the loss of dependency, considering that the accident occurred in the year 1999, a sum of ₹20,000/- each is awarded to the four claimants towards loss of consor(um (spousal and parental). A further sum of ₹10,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶35

Thus, the total compensa(on is computed at ₹24,99,422.5/-, which is rounded off to ₹25,00,000/-.

¶36

AHer deduc(ng the amount of ₹14,60,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa(on payable to the claimants comes to ₹10,40,000/-.

¶37

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are held en(tled to enhanced compensa(on of ₹10,40,000/-, which shall be payable along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe((on (ll its realiza(on. The liability of the respondents shall remain joint and several.

¶38