(O&M) Bhagwanti Vs Kartar Singh

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved by award dated 06.09.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellantsclaimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- on account of death of Basheshar Nath (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased), who died in motor vehicular accident dated 30.10.1998 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving bus bearing registration No. DSP-4854. Appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal as the same is not in accordance with their entitlement.

¶12

Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellantsclaimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶13

In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following

¶14

compensation:

¶15

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

-2-

¶17

FAO-3604-2002

¶18

Income	Rs. 3,000/- per month
1/3^rddeduction	Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 3,000-1,000)
Multiplier	10
Loss of dependency	Rs. 2,40,000 (Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 10)
Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation awarded	Rs. 2,55,000/-

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants–claimants contended that the deceased was engaged in the manufacture of scientific instruments and was earning Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- per month. To establish the vocation and income of the deceased, the appellants–claimants had examined PW-3, an employee of Oriental Science Apparatus Workshops, Ambala Cantt., to whom the deceased has been supplying scientific goods. On the basis of the evidence of the appellants–claimants and PW-3, learned counsel for the appellants– claimants argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. Reliance was also placed on a copy of the ledger account produced by PW-3 to substantiate the supply of goods by the deceased.

¶20

The learned Tribunal, however, had not accepted the evidence adduced by the appellants–claimants and assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 100/- per day, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per month taking him to be daily wager. On consideration of the evidence led by the appellants–claimants, I find no error in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the testimony of PW3 as well as that of the appellants–claimants with regard to the vocation and

¶21

income of the deceased.

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

-3-

¶24

FAO-3604-2002

¶25

In the present case, the claim of the appellants–claimants is that the deceased was running a manufacturing unit and engaged in the production of scientific goods and was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month from the said business. Admittedly, the income so claimed falls within the taxable limits and would have been liable to income tax. However, no income tax returns have been placed on record. Likewise, no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the deceased possessed the requisite qualifications or was, in fact, engaged in the manufacture of scientific apparatus, as pleaded by appellants-claimants. No registration certificate of the firm, sales tax registration, partnership deed, registration of the partnership or proprietary concern, or books of account of the firm have been produced by the appellantsclaimants. Thus, the best evidence regarding the income of the deceased has been withheld by appellants-claimants. Even if the ledger account produced by PW-3 is accepted at its face value even then, it is insufficient to conclude that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month, as alleged by the appellants-claimants. Perusal of the ledger reveals that the total sales reflected therein do not exceed Rs. 60,000/-. Even if the entries in the ledger are accepted as relevant, the cost of production and other business expenses have not been disclosed by the appellants-claimants. On a reasonable assessment, the income that could be attributed from the transactions reflected in the ledger would not exceed Rs. 20,000/- per annum, which is substantially less than the income already assessed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the testimony of PW-3 and the ledger account do not advance the case of the appellants. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, has rightly treated the deceased as a skilled worker and assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The finding of the

¶26

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-4-

¶28

FAO-3604-2002

¶29

Tribunal on this aspect is accordingly affirmed.

¶30

Since the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of accident, accordingly multiplier of ‘11’ would be applicable while determining loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 10% towards future prospects ought 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 five dependents i.e. wife and four children, 1/4^th deductions towards personal expenses needs to be made. Further, appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/each for loss of spousal and parental consortium. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to 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 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 said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶31

8. Accordingly, re-worked compensation is as under :-

¶32

Income	Rs.3,000/- per month (as per minimum wages)	Rs.3,000/- per month
Future prospects	10% (3000+300)	Rs.3,300/-
Deduction	1/4^th (3300-825)	Rs.2,475/-
Multiplier	11	11
Total loss of dependency	Rs.2,475X12X11	Rs.3,26,700/-
Loss of Estate		Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses		Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium to		Rs.40,000/-

¶33

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

-5-

¶35

FAO-3604-2002

¶36

claimant No.1
Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.5,6 and 7.	Rs.40,000/-x 3	Rs. 1,20,000/-
Total compensation awarded in appeal		Rs.5,16,700/-
Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,55,000/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.5,16,700/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,55,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.2,61,700/-

¶37

Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation

¶38

except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss 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 i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till its realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶39

Appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed

¶41

of accordingly.

¶42

09.07.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) manoj JUDGE

¶43

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶44

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Bhagwanti v. Kartar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Bhagwanti v. Kartar 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

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

Sultan Vs Smt. Sumitra & Ors.

Manphul Vs Bhag Singh & Ors.

Kaushlya etc. Vs Raju and Ors.