Partly allowed

Smt Ram Rati and Ors. v. Hy.St.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2026FAO/5965/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents appealed enhancement of compensation for death of their 20-year-old unmarried student son in a motor accident of 2001. Applying notional minimum wages, future prospects, personal deduction and multiplier 18, the High Court enhanced total compensation from ₹1,25,000 to ₹3,37,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹2,12,000 over award already made, with interest @7.5% p.a. from filing till realization; liability joint and several; mother to receive all except ₹15,000 with interest to fa

Smt Ram Rati and Ors. Vs Hy.St. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO-5965-2002 Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Smt. Ram Ra� and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶5

Present: Ms. Prerna Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶6

Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

¶7

¶8

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

It is a claimants’ appeal directed against the award dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, limited to the aspect of quantum of compensa�on.

¶10

The unfortunate motor vehicular accident occurred on 13.01.2001, resul�ng in the death of Virender @ Sonu, aged 20 years, who was admi:edly unmarried. The claim pe��on under Sec�on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by his parents seeking compensa�on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶11

The learned Tribunal, while allowing the claim pe��on, awarded a lump sum compensa�on of ₹1,25,000/- without undertaking any structured computa�on of loss of dependency on the basis of assessed income, mul�plier or future prospects.

¶12

Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement.

¶13

The only ques�on that arises for considera�on is whether the compensa�on assessed by the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the

¶14

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

��

¶16

se:led principles governing determina�on of just compensa�on under Sec�on 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶17

It is undisputed that the deceased was 20 years of age and was a student. There is no evidence of actual earnings. In such circumstances, the income is required to be determined on a no�onal basis, keeping in view the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant �me.

¶18

Learned counsel for the insurer fairly submits that the minimum wages in Haryana for an unskilled worker in the year 2001 were ₹1,964/- per month, which posi�on is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶19

Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as ₹1,964/-, and the annual income works out to ₹23,568/-.

¶20

The Cons�tu�on Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, has authorita�vely se:led that in the case of a deceased below 40 years of age, 40% of the established income is to be added towards future prospects, even in cases of no�onal or fixed income.

¶21

Applying the said principle, 40% of ₹23,568/- is required to be added. ADer such addi�on, the annual income comes to ₹32,995.2/-.

¶22

The deceased was unmarried. The law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora�on and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, provides that in the case of death of an unmarried person, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as ordinarily the contribu�on to the family would be half of the earnings. Further, as clarified in the said judgment, ordinarily only the mother would be considered dependent in the absence of specific evidence showing dependency of the father.

¶23

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

��

¶25

In the present case, it is fairly conceded that there is no evidence to establish financial dependency of the father, who was 45 years of age at the �me of accident.

¶26

Thus, aDer deduc�ng 50% towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to ₹16,497.6/-.

¶27

For a deceased aged 20 years, the appropriate mul�plier, as per the table approved in Sarla Verma’s case and consistently followed thereaDer, is 18.

¶28

Applying mul�plier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to ₹16,497.6 × 18 = ₹2,96,957/- (rounded off).

¶29

The accident occurred in the year 2001. Keeping in view the principles governing conven�onal heads as crystallized in P ranay Sethi’s case, and considering the period of accident, a sum of ₹15,000/- each is awarded to both the parents towards loss of parental consor�um. Further, ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

¶30

Thus, the total compensa�on is computed as under:

¶31

Loss of dependency: ₹2,96,957/-

¶32

Parental consor�um (₹15,000 × 2): ₹30,000/-

¶33

Funeral expenses: ₹5,000/-

¶34

Loss of estate: ₹5,000/-

¶35

Total: ₹3,36,957/-, which is rounded off to ₹3,37,000/-.

¶36

Since the learned Tribunal had awarded ₹1,25,000/-, the enhanced amount payable to the appellants works out to ₹2,12,000/-.

¶37

The Tribunal, by awarding a lump sum amount without applying the structured formula evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, failed to determine “just compensa�on” as mandated under Sec�on 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reassessment undertaken herein brings the

¶38

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

��

¶40

award in conformity with the se:led legal principles.

¶41

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be en�tled to enhanced compensa�on of ₹2,12,000/-, over and above the amount already awarded, along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe��on �ll realiza�on. The liability shall remain joint and several upon the respondents. Except the amount of ₹15,000/with propor�onate interest payable to the father, remaining enhanced compensa�on with propor�onate interest shall be payable to the mother of the deceased only.

¶42

18.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶43

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Smt Ram Rati and Ors. v. Hy.St.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ram Rati and Ors. v. Hy.St.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satbir Vs Shyama @ Shyam Singh and Others

Radha Krishan Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Gurjot Singh Vs Sakinder Singh

Deepak and Anr. Vs Birmati and Others

Deepak Kumar Vs Jagjit Sinngh and Anors

Bimla and Ors. Vs Manohar Lal and Ors.