Parkassh Kaur Vs Surjit Singh

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are the parents of Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ deceased ’), who had died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 07.02.1998, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No. PB 10 H-9163, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.2,95,200/- awarded vide impugned award dated 04.10.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amristar (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 regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶16

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

FAO-5774-2002

¶19

In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following

¶20

compensation :

¶21

Income	Not assessed
Dependency after deduction	Rs.48,000/-per annum
Multiplier	6
Loss of dependency	Rs.2,88,000/-
	(Rs.48,000 x 6)
Funeral expenses	Rs.5,000/-
Litigation expenses	Rs.2,200/-
Total compensation awarded	Rs.2,95,200/-

¶22

Appellants-claimants had claimed that deceased was running a dairy farm and had also set up a machinery to separate cream from milk. It also asserted that the deceased had 18 buffaloes and was earning Rs.30,000/per month. It was further claimed that deceased had raised loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Bank of India and Rs.95,000/- from State Bank of Patiala for running dairy business. However, learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of deceased to be Rs.4,000/- and has rejected the claim of appellants/claimants that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by running a dairy and by selling milk by-products.

¶23

Appellants/claimants have duly examined AW1 and AW2 officials from two different banks from whom deceased had raised loan for running his dairy. AW1 has clearly stated that deceased had raised a loan of Rs.95,000/- and for its repayment he was paying Rs.4,000/- per month and prior to his death had paid installments regularly for seven months @Rs.4,000/- per month amounting to total of Rs.28,000/-. Similarly AW2 clerk from Bank of India had stated that deceased had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in October 1996 and was repaying the same @Rs.5,000/- per month. He had also stated that the said loan was taken for running dairy. Appellants/claimants have also duly proved installation of cream separator,

¶24

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

FAO-5774-2002

¶26

-3-

¶27

therefore, as far as vocation of deceased is concerned, same stands proved beyond doubt. It is clearly made out that deceased was running a dairy and selling milk by-products. It is also clearly made out that deceased was also repaying Rs.9,000/- per month regularly to the banks to pay off his loan taken for running the dairy.

¶28

There is no rebuttal to the evidence that deceased had 18 buffaloes from the fact that deceased was regularly paying Rs.9,000/- per month to the bank to return his loan. It is clearly made out that deceased was earning more than Rs.12,000/- per month out of which he was paying Rs.9,000/- towards principle of loan amount along with interest. The amount being returned to bank also constituted income of deceased from running the diary. Mere non-production of documents/accounts do not lead to the conclusion that deceased was not running a dairy or was not earning, specially when other material indicating income from dairy is available.

¶29

It must be noted that India is a developing country where more than 80% population is engaged in the informal sector. Small businesses/unorganized work force generally do not maintain documentation/accounts as same is beyond their capacity & is not cost effective, however, that does not mean that income of such persons cannot be determined by the Court. The corroborative material such as bank loans, living standard, deposits, deposits in bank, ownership of immovable property, ownership of vehicles/cars etc. all goes to indicate income and can very well be taken into consideration by the Court while determining income of deceased at the time of his death.

¶30

In the present case also, considering that deceased was regularly paying Rs.9,000/- per month to the bank which he was earning from dairy

¶31

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

FAO-5774-2002 -4-

¶33

business, therefore, income of deceased is to be taken into consideration by taking the fact that he was running dairy repaying Rs.9,000/- towards loan. Since the dairy business continued after the deceased, therefore, managerial skills of deceased has to be taken for ascertaining his monthly income. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month after keeping in view nature of vocation which was dependent upon income from assets + managerial skills. Assets continues to generate income and loss suffered by appellants/claimants is of managerial skills.

¶34

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 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680. That appropriate amount of compensation needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of filial consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶35

In the present case, deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and accordingly multiplier of ‘18’ would be applicable while determining loss of dependency. 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

¶36

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) . Since the deceased was a bachelor and survived by two dependents i.e parents, 50% deductions towards personal expenses needs to be made. Accordingly, appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of filial 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

¶37

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

-5-

¶39

FAO-5774-2002

¶40

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

¶41

said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

¶42

11. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :-

¶43

Income	Rs.6,000/- per month	Rs.6,000/- per month
Future Prospects	40% (6,000 + 2,400)	Rs.8,400/-
Deduction	50% (8,400–4,200)	Rs.4,200/-
Multiplier	18	18
Total loss of dependency	Rs.4,200 x 12 x 18	Rs.9,07,200/-
Loss of Estate		Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses		Rs.15,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to claimant Nos.1 & 2	Rs.40,000 x 2	Rs.80,000/-
Total Compensation awarded in appeal		Rs.10,17,200/-
Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,95,200/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.10,17,200/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,95,200/- (awarded by the Tribunal)	Rs.7,22,000/-

¶44

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

¶45

CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.09 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

-6-

¶47

FAO-5774-2002

¶48