Duri Bai Vs Balwant Singh etc.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa:on awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar vide award dated 17.07.1992. The challenge in the appeal is confined only to the quantum of compensa:on.

¶17

The facts, necessary for adjudica:on of the present appeal, are that on 20.07.1990, Teku Ram lost his life in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registra:on No. RJ-14-3722, which was being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. The widow and son of the deceased filed a claim pe::on before the Tribunal seeking compensa:on from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶18

Upon apprecia:on of the evidence on record, the learned

¶19

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

FAO-652-1993 [2]

¶21

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and consequently, awarded a sum of ₹76,800/as compensa:on to the claimants, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has assessed the compensa:on on the lower side. It is argued that the deceased was about 52 years of age and was earning ₹1,600/- per month at the relevant :me. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the claimants are en:tled to addi:on towards future prospects. It is further submi3ed that since the deceased leH behind two dependents, namely his widow and son, the deduc:on towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 1/3rd and not 1/2 as applied by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to award just compensa:on under the conven:onal heads such as loss of consor:um, loss of estate and funeral/transporta:on expenses.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver of the offending bus. The age as well as income of the deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal, have also not been seriously contested. Learned counsel for the respondents has also been unable to dispute the legal posi:on that the compensa:on is required to be reassessed in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (supra), Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora�on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶24

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

FAO-652-1993 [3]

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the par:es and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at ₹1,600/-, which results in an annual income of ₹19,200/-. Since the deceased was about 52 years of age at the :me of the accident, an addi:on of 10% towards future prospects is required to be made in terms of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). AHer adding 10%, the annual income comes to ₹21,120/-.

¶27

The deceased leH behind two dependents, namely his widow and son. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate deduc:on towards personal and living expenses would be 1/3rd of the income. AHer making this deduc:on, the annual contribu:on of the deceased towards the family works out to ₹14,080/-.

¶28

Having regard to the age of the deceased, the appropriate mul:plier applicable in the present case is 11. Accordingly, the total compensa:on under the head of loss of dependency comes to ₹1,54,880/(14,080 × 11).

¶29

In addi:on to the above, the claimants are also en:tled to compensa:on under the conven:onal heads. In terms of the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) , the dependents are en:tled to compensa:on towards consor:um. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident in the present case occurred in the year 1990 and the claim pe::on was adjudicated long prior to the crystalliza:on of the present standards of compensa:on, it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a consolidated amount of ₹10,000/- each to both the claimants towards spousal and filial consor:um, totalling ₹20,000/-.

¶30

Further, the appellants are also en:tled to compensa:on under the conven:onal heads of loss of estate and funeral/transporta:on

¶31

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

FAO-652-1993 [4]

¶33

expenses, which are assessed at ₹5,000/- each. Accordingly, a sum of ₹10,000/- is awarded under these heads.

¶34

Thus, the total compensa:on payable to the claimants is

¶35

recalculated as follows:

¶36

Loss of dependency: ₹1,54,880/-

¶37

Loss of consor:um: ₹20,000/-

¶38

Loss of estate and funeral expenses: ₹10,000/-

¶39

Total: ₹1,84,880/-

¶40

Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of ₹76,800/-, the enhanced amount payable to the claimants comes to ₹1,08,080/-.

¶41

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellants shall be en:tled to enhanced compensa:on of ₹1,08,080/along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe::on :ll realiza:on. The said amount shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondents and shall be shared equally by the appellants.

¶42

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶43

09.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶44

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Duri Bai v. Balwant Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duri Bai v. Balwant Singh etc.

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

Rajesh Kumar Vs Jagmail Singh

Krishan Bhatia Vs Virender Singh

Jhamman Lilu Vs Bakul Arora and Others

Ved Parkash Vs Mahesh Kumar and Others

General Manager,Punjab Roadways Transpor Vs Vijay Kumar Mehra

Cental Board of Secondary Education Vs Moxhda Bajaj and Another