Ram Kali Vs Tabey Ram

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife, two minor sons of Rajinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 04.09.2001, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No.1 HP-06-0288, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.3,17,200/- awarded vide impugned award dated 26.07.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (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

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

FAO-4840-2002

¶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.2,400/-per month
Deduction	4/6^th
Multiplier	16
Loss of dependency	Rs.3,07,200/-
Loss of consortium	Rs.5,000/-
Funeral expenses, last rites, transportation	Rs.5,000/-
Total compensation awarded	Rs.3,17,200/-

¶23

Appellants-claimants had claimed that deceased was working as driver. However, except for making oral assertions that deceased was working as driver and was contributing Rs.5,000/- for upkeep of his family, the appellants–claimants had not brought any documentary evidence to prove income of deceased as a driver. No records showing salary or showing employment of deceased were placed on record. PW2 Sarpanch of village though corroborated statement of appellants/claimants that deceased was a driver, could not disclose exact salary of deceased. Learned Tribunal has taken deceased to be a driver. From evidence of claim petition, only conclusion which could be drawn is that deceased was driver by vocation. In absence of any evidence supporting oral claim that deceased was contributing Rs.5,000/- to the family as a driver, learned Tribunal has rightly taken minimum wages payable to driver in year 2002. Income of deceased is taken as Rs.2,400/- per month as was held by learned Tribunal.

¶24

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

¶25

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

FAO-4840-2002

¶28

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680 and deduction of 1/3^rdth is required to be made towards personal expenses of deceased as deceased is survived by wife and two minor children. 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.

¶29

Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month. In the present case, deceased was aged about 35 years and accordingly multiplier of ‘16’ would be applicable while determining loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% 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 three dependents i.e wife, two minor children, 1/3^th deduction towards personal expenses needs to be made. Accordingly, 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 parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. 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.

¶30

Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-

¶31

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

FAO-4840-2002

¶33

-4-

¶34

Income	Rs. 2,400/- per month	Rs 2,400/- per month
Future Prospects	40% (2400 + 960)	Rs.3,360/-
Deduction	1/3^rd (3360-1120)	Rs.2,240/-
Multiplier	16	16
Total loss of dependency	Rs.2,240 x 12 x 17	Rs.4,30,080/-
Loss of Estate		Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses		Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Spousal consortium to claimant No.1		Rs.40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 & 3	Rs.40,000 x 2	Rs.80,000/-
Total Compensation awarded in appeal		Rs.5,80,080/-
Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.3,17,200/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.5,80,080/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.3,17,200/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.2,62,880/-

¶35

Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced

¶36

compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate. Under conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶37

Present appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶38

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

¶39

06.07.2026		(PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE
chiranjeev
	Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable	: Yes/No : Yes/No

¶40

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Kali v. Tabey Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kali v. Tabey Ram

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

Harbans Lal Vs Sodhi Dial Singh & Ors.

Parkassh Kaur Vs Surjit Singh

Ram Mehar Vs Mam Kaur and Ors.

Balbir Kaur Vs Jhina Singh & Ors.

Kamlesh Devi & Ors. Vs Vimal Kumar and Ors.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Surjit Singh etc.