Rajwanti & Ors. Vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 16.05.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.8,39,424/- along with interest @9% per annum on account of death of deceased Jasmer in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 16.12.2014.

¶19

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

¶20

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶21

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

¶24

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants be enhanced, as per latest law.

¶26

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently argues on the line of award. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

¶28

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

¶29

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] ,

¶30

laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

¶31

“ 30 . Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-

¶32

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶33

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶34

-3-

¶35

third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶36

31 . Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

¶37

32 . Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger

¶38

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶39

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶40

-4-

¶41

non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

¶42

42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

¶43

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶44

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:-

¶45

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

¶46

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;

¶47

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶48

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶49

-5-

¶50

(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;

¶51

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.

¶52

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶53

“ 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned,

¶54

we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in

¶55

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶56

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶57

-6-

¶58

determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.

¶59

59.3 . While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was

¶60

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶61

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶62

-7-

¶63

between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

¶64

59.4 . In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶65

59.5 . For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

¶66

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment.

¶67

59.7 . The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶68

59.8 . Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000

¶69

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶70

-8-

¶71

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶72

respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

¶73

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

¶74

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

¶75

“ 21 . A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

¶76

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

¶77

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,

¶78

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶79

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶80

-9-

¶81

protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

¶82

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

¶83

22 . Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23 . The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium

¶84

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶85

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶86

-10-

¶87

under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

¶88

24 . The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

¶89

A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. The deceased-Jasmer was stated to be an agriculturist, earning Rs.50,000/- per month. To substantiate the income, claimant has examined as PW-3 and PW-4 Mahavir, PW-5 Satyawan. PW-4 and PW-5 had deposed before learned Tribunal that they had given their agricultural land to deceased on lease. However, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,290/- per month by taking into account minimum wages at the relevant period of time which is on lower side and deserves to be increased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again emphasized on the fact that minimum wage notifications can

¶90

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶91

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶92

-11-

¶93

be a yardstick for the calculation of income but some guess work is to be done in relation to the profession of the deceased in the interest of justice. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., 2021 INSC 593 has reiterated the above mentioned principle. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶94

“10. It is the specifc case of the claimants that the i deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs.15000/- per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15000/- per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certif i cate was not f i led. The Tribunal has fxed the i monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notifed for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In i absence of salary certif i cate the minimum wage notif i cation can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to f i x the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs.15000/- per month. In the case of Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., (2013)

¶95

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶96

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶97

-12-

¶98

10 SCC 695 this Court while dealing with the claim relating to an accident which occurred on 08.11.2004 has taken the salary of the driver of light motor vehicle at Rs.6000/- per month. In this case the accident was on 27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident. Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering oral evidence on record we may take the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month for the purpose of loss of dependency. Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on f i xed salary, 40% enhancement is to be made towards loss of future prospects. At the same time deduction of 1/3rd is to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly the income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs.7467/- per month. By applying the multiplier of '16' the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/-. As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/- is already paid towards the loss of dependency the appellant-parents are entitled for dif f erential compensation of Rs.3,33,964/-. Further in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130 the appellants are also entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-each. The fnding of the Tribunal i that parents cannot be treated as dependents runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The judgment in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 relied on by the counsel for the

¶99

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶100

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶101

-13-

¶102

respondent would not render any assistance in support of his case having regard to facts of the case and the evidence on record.

¶103

11. For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed and appellants are entitled for further compensation amount of Rs.3,33,964/- on account of loss of dependency and consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus total compensation payable to the appellants is fxed at i Rs.4,13,964/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of fling i of claim petition. ”

¶104

Therefore, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to reassess the income of the deceased to meet the ends of justice as Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶105

Further perusal of the award reveals that major son of the deceased were not awarded any compensation as he was not considered dependant upon the income of the deceased. However, such approach of learned Tribunal is untenable in the eyes of law. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Tomar & Others v. Ashok Kushwaha & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine 554 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressly held that the term legal representative should not be confied to those who inherit the estate but extend to all persons who suffer on account of death of the deceased.

¶106

The relevant paras of judgment passed in Sadhana Tomar’s case (supra) are reproduced as under:-

¶107

“13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair

¶108

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶109

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶110

-14-

¶111

compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. Another question which arose for our consideration, as for the purpose of loss of dependency, the deduction of annual income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as there are five claimants. The Tribunal did not consider appellant Nos.4 and 5, namely, the father and the younger sister, respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating therein that the father was not dependent on the income of the deceased and since the father is alive, the younger sister is also not dependent on the income of the deceased. This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. 14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712], this Court observed that :

¶112

"16. In our view, the term "legal representative" should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident

¶113

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶114

-15-

¶115

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶116

should have a remedy for realisation of compensation.”

¶117

In view of the above legal position, major son is also held entitled to compensation as he also remain dependant upon the salary of the deceased.

¶118

A further perusal of the award reveals that the amount awarded under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium is on the lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

¶119

CONCLUSION

¶120

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 16.05.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation from the respondents, as per the calculations made here-under:-

¶121

*Sr. No.*	*Heads*		*Compensation Awarded*
1	Monthly Income		Rs.10,000/-
2	Future Prospects 25%		Rs.2,500/- (25% of 10,000/-)
3	Deduction towards expenditure 1/3	personal	Rs.4,166/- (12,500 X 1/3)
4.	Total Income		Rs.8,334/- (12,500-4,166)
5	Multiplier		14
6	Annual Dependency		Rs.14,00,112/- (8,334 X 12 X 14)
7	Loss of Estate		Rs.15,000/-
8	Funeral Expenses		Rs.15,000/-
9	Loss of Consortium Parental : 40,000 X 2 Spousal : 40,000 X 1		Rs.1,20,000/-

¶122

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22

¶123

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶124

FAO-6243-2016 (O&M)

¶125

-16-

¶126

10	Total Compensation	Rs.15,50,112/-
11	Deduction
	Amount Awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.8,39,424/-
12	Enhanced amount	Rs.7,10,688/- (15,50,112-8,39,424)

¶127

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

¶128

Consequently, the respondent No.3-Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellants/claimants in their bank accounts. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶129

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶130

18.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶131

MOHD AYUB 2026.04.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Rajwanti & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Rajwanti & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana and Others Vs Prem Sagar Since Deceased through His Lrs

Kuldip Singh Vs Jaswinder Kaur, the Secretary, Dept. of Home Affaor Chd.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sheela Devi & Ors.

Kanwar Singh Vs Vijay Kumar and Anr.

Baljit Singh Vs Balwant Singh and Anr.

Nita and Ors. Vs M/S C & C Construction Co. and Ors.