Apsana and Others v. Jamshed Khan and Others

FAO-3568-2023 1 INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH FAO-3568-2023o(O&M) Apsana and ors. ......Appellants vs. Jamshed Khan and ors. ......Respondents Da !o"#oR!$!%&!'o15(01(2026 Da !o"#oP%")"*)+!,!) 'o1-(01(2026 U./"ati!0o")'-20(01(2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM'o HON1B2EoMR3(oJU3TICEo3UDEEPTIo3HARMA Present: Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** o3UDEEPTIo3HARMAooJo(

¶1The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

06.02.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.18,63,600/3 along with interest @6% per annum, on account of death of Aabid in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 07.08.2019.

¶2As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. 3UBMI33ION3oOFo2EARNEDoCOUN3E2oFORoTHEoPARTIE3

¶3The learned counsel for the claimants3appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and GAURAV ARORA 2026.01.c20o 0m9:1p4ensation be enhanced as per latest law. FAO-3568-2023 2

¶4Per o contra, o learned o counsel o for o respondent-Insurance o Company, however,ovehementlyoarguesothatotheoawardohasorightlyobeenopassedoandothe amountoofocompensation,oasoassessedobyotheolearnedoTribunalohasorightlyobeen granted.oTherefore,oheopraysoforodismissaloofotheoappeal.

5.o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedotheowhole recordoofothisocase. SETTLEDoLAWoONoCOMPENSATION

¶6Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof oSarlaoVermaoVs.oDelhi TransportoCorporationoandoAnothero[(2009)o6oSupremeoCourtoCaseso121],olaid downotheolawoonoassessmentoofocompensationoandotheorelevantoparasoofotheosame areoasounder:- "30.oThoughoinosomeocasesotheodeductionotoobeomadeotowards personaloandolivingoexpensesoisocalculatedoonotheobasisoofounits indicated o in o Trilok o Chandra, o the o general o practice o is o to o apply standardisedodeductions.oHavingoaoconsideredoseveralosubsequent decisionsoofothisoCourt,oweoareoofotheoviewothatowhereotheodeceased wasomarried,otheodeductionotowardsopersonaloandolivingoexpensesoof theodeceased,oshouldobeoone-thirdo(1/3rd)owhereotheonumberoof dependentofamilyomembersoiso2otoo3,oone-fourtho(1/4th)owhereothe numberoofodependentofamilyomembersoiso4otoo6,oandoone-fiftho(1/5th) whereotheonumberoofodependentofamilyomembersoexceedsosix.

31.oWhereotheodeceasedowasoaobacheloroandotheoclaimantsoareothe parents,otheodeductionofollowsoaodifferentoprinciple.oInoregardoto bachelors, o normally, o 50% o is o deducted o as o personal o and o living expenses,obecauseoitoisoassumedothatoaobachelorowouldotendotoospend moreoonohimself.oEvenootherwise,othereoisoalsootheopossibilityoofohis FAO-3568-2023 3 gettingomarriedoinoaoshortotime,oinowhichoeventotheocontributionotoothe parent(s)oandosiblingsoisolikelyotoobeocutodrastically.oFurther,osubject tooevidenceotootheocontrary,otheofatheroisolikelyotoohaveohisoown incomeoandowillonotobeoconsideredoasoaodependantoandotheomother aloneowillobeoconsideredoasoaodependant.oInotheoabsenceoofoevidence tootheocontrary,obrothersoandosistersowillonotobeoconsideredoas dependants,obecauseotheyowilloeitherobeoindependentoandoearning,oor married,oorobeodependentoonotheofather.

32.oThusoevenoifotheodeceasedoisosurvivedobyoparentsoandosiblings, onlyodotheomotherowouldobeoconsideredotoobeoaodependant,oando50% wouldobeotreatedoasotheopersonaloandolivingoexpensesoofotheobachelor ando50%oasotheocontributionotootheofamily.oHowever,owhereotheofamily ofotheobacheloroisolargeoandodependentoonotheoincomeoofotheodeceased, asoinoaocaseowhereoheohasoaowidowedomotheroandolargeonumberoof youngeronon-earningosistersoorobrothers,ohisopersonaloandoliving expensesomayobeorestrictedotooone-thirdoandocontributionotootheofamily willobeotakenoasotwo-third. * * *

42.oWeothereforeoholdothatotheomultiplierotoobeousedoshouldobeoas mentionedoinoColumno(4)oofotheotableoaboveo(preparedobyoapplying SusammaoThomas³,oTrilokoChandraoandoCharlie),owhichostartsowith anooperativeomultiplieroofo18o(forotheoageogroupsoofo15otoo20oando21 too25oyears),oreducedobyooneounitoforoeveryofiveoyears,othatoisoM-17ofor 26otoo30oyears,oM-16oforo31otoo35oyears,oM-15oforo36otoo40oyears,oM-14oforo41otoo45oyears,oandoM-13oforo46otoo50oyears,othenoreducedoby FAO-3568-2023 4 twoounitsoforoeveryofiveoyears,othatois,oM-11oforo51otoo55oyears,oM-9 foro56otoo60oyears,oM-7oforo61otoo65oyearsoandoM-5oforo66otoo70oyears.

¶7Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofooNationaloInsuranceoCompany Ltd.oVs.oPranayoSethio&oOrs.o[(2017)o16oSCCo680]ohasoclarifiedotheolawounder Sectionso166,o163-Aoando168oofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988,oonotheofollowing aspects:-

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

(B) Selectionoofomultiplierodependingoonoageoofodeceased;

(C) Ageoofodeceasedoonobasisoforoapplyingomultiplier;

(D) Reasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,olossoof estate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloexpenses,owithoescalation;

(E) Futureoprospectsoforoallocategoriesoofopersonsoandoforodifferent ages:owithopermanentojob;oself-employedoorofixedosalary.o Theorelevantoportionoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedoasounder:- "52.o Asofaroasotheoconventionaloheadsoareoconcerned,oweofind itodifficultotooagreeowithotheoviewoexpressedoinoRajesh².oItohas granted oRs.25,000 otowardso funeral oexpenses,oRso1,00,000 towardsolossoofoconsortiumoandoRso1,00,000otowardsolossoof careoandoguidanceoforominorochildren.oTheoheadorelatingoto lossoofocareoandominorochildrenodoesonotoexist.oThoughoRajesh refersotooSantoshoDevi,oitodoesonotoseemotoofollowotheosame.oThe conventionaloandotraditionaloheads,oneedlessotoosay,ocannotobe determinedoonopercentageobasisobecauseothatowouldonotobeoan acceptableocriterion.oUnlikeodeterminationoofoincome,otheosaid headsohaveotoobeoquantified.oAnyoquantificationomustohaveoa FAO-3568-2023 5 reasonableofoundation.oThereocanobeonoodisputeooverotheofact thatopriceoindex,ofalloinobankointerest,oescalationooforatesoin manyoaofieldohaveotoobeonoticed.oTheocourtocannotoremain obliviousotootheosame.oThereohasobeenoaothumboruleoinothis aspect. o Otherwise, o there o will o be o extreme o difficulty o in determinationoofotheosameoandounlessotheothumboruleois applied,othereowillobeoimmenseovariationolackingoanyokindoof consistencyoasoaoconsequenceoofowhich,otheoordersopassedoby theotribunalsoandocourtsoareolikelyotoobeounguided.oTherefore, weothinkoitoseemlyotoofixoreasonableosums.oItoseemsotoousothat reasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,olossoof estate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloexpensesoshouldobe Rs.15,000, o Rs.40,000 o and o Rs.15,000 o respectively. o o The principle o of o revisiting o the o said o heads o is o an o acceptable principle. o But o the o revisit o should o not o be o fact-centric o or quantum-centric.ooWeothinkothatoitowouldobeocondignothatothe amount o that o we o have o quantified o should o be o enhanced o on percentageobasisoinoeveryothreeoyearsoandotheoenhancement shouldobeoatotheorateoofo10%oinoaospanoofothreeoyears.ooWeoare disposedotooholdosoobecauseothatowillobringoinoconsistencyoin respectoofothoseoheads. * * * o59.3.oWhileodeterminingotheoincome,oanoadditionoofo50%oof actualosalaryotootheoincomeoofotheodeceasedotowardsofuture prospects,owhereotheodeceasedohadoaopermanentojoboandowas belowotheoageoofo40oyears,oshouldobeomade.oTheoaddition FAO-3568-2023 6 shouldobeo30%,oifotheoageoofotheodeceasedowasobetweeno40oto 50oyears.oInocaseotheodeceasedowasobetweenotheoageoofo50otoo60 years,otheoadditionoshouldobeo15%.ooActualosalaryoshouldobe readoasoactualosalaryolessotax.

59.4.oInocaseotheodeceasedowasoself-employedo(or)oonoaofixed salary,oanoadditionoofo40%oofotheoestablishedoincomeoshouldobe theowarrantowhereotheodeceasedowasobelowotheoageoofo40oyears. Anoadditionoofo25%owhereotheodeceasedowasobetweenotheoageoof 40otoo50oyearsoando10%owhereotheodeceasedowasobetweenothe ageoofo50otoo60oyearsoshouldobeoregardedoasotheonecessary methodoofocomputation.oTheoestablishedoincomeomeansothe incomeominusotheotaxocomponent.

59.5.oForodeterminationoofotheomultiplicand,otheodeductionofor personaloandolivingoexpenses,otheotribunalsoandotheocourtsoshall beoguidedobyoparaso30otoo32oofoSarlaoVerma⁴owhichoweohave reproducedohereinbefore.

59.6.oTheoselectionoofomultiplieroshallobeoasoindicatedoinothe TableoinoSarlaoVerma¹oreadowithoparao42oofothatojudgment.

59.7.oTheoageoofotheodeceasedoshouldobeotheobasisoforoapplying theomultiplier.

59.8.oReasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,oloss ofoestate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloexpensesoshouldobeoRs 15,000,oRso40,000oandoRso15,000orespectively.oTheoaforesaid amountsoshouldobeoenhancedoatotheorateoofo10%oinoeveryothree years." FAO-3568-2023 7

8.o Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoMagmaoGeneraloInsurance CompanyoLimitedoVs.oNanuoRamoaliasoChuhruoRamo&oOtherso[2018(18)oSCC 130] oafteroconsideringo oSarlaoVermao (supra)o and oPranayoSethio(Supra) ohas settledotheolaworegardingoconsortium.ooRelevantoparasoofotheosameoareoreproduced asounder:- "21.oAoConstitutionoBenchoofothisoCourtoinoPranayoSethi²odealt withotheovariousoheadsounderowhichocompensationoisotoobe awardedoinoaodeathocase.oOneoofotheseoheadsoisolossoof consortium.oInolegaloparlance,o"consortium"oisoaocompendious term o which o encompasses o "spousal o consortium", o "parental consortium",oando"filialoconsortium".oTheorightotooconsortium wouldoincludeotheocompany,ocare,ohelp,ocomfort,oguidance, solaceoandoaffectionoofotheodeceased,owhichoisoaolossotoohis family.oWithorespectotooaospouse,oitowouldoincludeosexual relationsowithotheodeceasedospouse.

21.1. oSpousal o consortiumo is o generally o defined o as o rights pertainingotootheorelationshipoofoaohusband-wifeowhichoallows compensationotootheosurvivingospouseoforolossoofo"company, society,ocooperation,oaffection,oandoaidoofotheootheroinoevery conjugalorelation".

21.2. oParentaloconsortiumo isograntedotootheochildouponothe premature o death o of o a o parent, o for o loss o of o "parental o aid, protection, o affection, o society, o discipline, o guidance o and training".

21.3. oFilial o consortiumo is o the o right o of o the o parents o to compensationoinotheocaseoofoanoaccidentalodeathoofoaochild.oAn FAO-3568-2023 8 accidentoleadingotootheodeathoofoaochildocausesogreatoshockoand agonyotootheoparentsoandofamilyoofotheodeceased.oTheogreatest agonyoforoaoparentoisotooloseotheirochildoduringotheirolifetime. Childrenoareovaluedoforotheirolove,oaffection,ocompanionship andotheiroroleoinotheofamilyounit.

22.oConsortiumoisoaospecialoprismoreflectingochangingonorms aboutotheostatusoandoworthoofoactualorelationships.oModern jurisdictionsoworld-overohaveorecognisedothatotheovalueoofoa child'soconsortiumofaroexceedsotheoeconomicovalueoofothe compensationoawardedoinotheocaseoofotheodeathoofoaochild.oMost jurisdictions o therefore o permit o parents o to o be o awarded compensationounderolossoofoconsortiumoonotheodeathoofoaochild. Theoamountoawardedotootheoparentsoisoaocompensationoforoloss ofotheolove,oaffection,ocareoandocompanionshipoofotheodeceased child.o

23.oTheoMotoroVehiclesoActoisoaobeneficialolegislationoaimedoat providingoreliefotootheovictimsoorotheirofamilies,oinocasesoof genuineoclaims.oInocaseowhereoaoparentohasolostotheirominor child,oorounmarriedosonoorodaughter,otheoparentsoareoentitledoto be o awarded o loss o of o consortium o under o the o head o of o filial consortium.oParentaloconsortiumoisoawardedotoochildrenowho loseotheiroparentsoinomotorovehicleoaccidentsounderotheoAct.oA fewoHighoCourtsohaveoawardedocompensationoonothisocount. However,othereowasonooclarityowithorespectotootheoprinciplesoon which o compensation o could o be o awarded o on o loss o of o filial consortium. FAO-3568-2023 -

24.oTheoamountoofocompensationotoobeoawardedoasoconsortiumowill beogovernedobyotheoprinciplesoofoawardingocompensationounder DlossoofoconsortiumDoasolaidodownoinoCranayotiethi8.o*notheopresent case,oweodeemoitoappropriateotooawardotheofatheroandotheosisteroof theodeceased,oanoamountoofo7so&+,+++oeachoforolossoofofilial consortium.

¶9A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident. However, learned counsel committed an error in determining the age of the deceased as 30 years by placing reliance on the age of his wife as reflected in her Aadhaar card. The learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that an Aadhaar card does not constitute conclusive proof of age. Moreover, the learned Tribunal also overlooked the age of the deceased as specifically recorded in the post3mortem report (Ex. P35), which is a contemporaneous and reliable medical document. As per the post3mortem report, the age of the deceased was assessed to be 25 years, and the same ought to have been accepted for the purpose of adjudication

¶10It is settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of deceased as per post mortem report. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:3 B!!.oTheoamountoarrivedoatobyotheoHighoCourtoofotheomonthly incomeobeingo7s.(,2!5"-o 7upeeso.iveoThousando-ightoHundredoand Fineteen$ o as o against o the o claim o of o 7s.!+,+++"- o 7upees o Ten Thousand$oappearsotoobeoonotheolowerosideoasotheototaloearningoof the o deceased o from o family o pension o itself o ought o to o have o been GAURAV ARORA 2026.01.20 09:14 consideredowhichoitselfowouldocomeotoo7s.(,!#4"-o 7upeeso.ive FAO-3568-2023 10 ThousandoOneoHundredoandoThirty-Seven)otoowhichotheonotional wagesoasoaohomeomakerohadotoobeoadded,owhichoweofindois reasonableoasohasobeenotakenobyotheoHighoCourtoatoRs.2,500/- (RupeesoTwooThousandoFiveoHundred).oThus,otheomonthlyoincome wouldocomeotooRs.7,637/-o(RupeesoSevenoThousandoSixoHundredoand Thirty-Seven),owhichoweoareoinclinedotooroundooffoatoRs.7,000/- (RupeesoSevenoThousand)oComingotootheomultiplierofactorowhichois dependentoonotheoage,othereoisosufficientoindicationothatotheodeceased wasoagedoabouto45oyearsoasoperotheoPost-MortemoReportowhichoisoa scientificoassessmentoofotheoageoofotheodeceased.oTheopurported discrepancyoinotheoageowithoregardotoothatoofotheoclaimantoandothe deceasedoisoerroneousoforotheoreasonothatowhenotheoclaimowasofiled, appellantono.1owasoagedoabouto30oyearsoandoaodifferenceoofo15oyears betweenotheodaughter-in-lawoandotheomother-in-lawocannotobeosaid toobeototallyodevoidooforealityogivenotheocontextualoandoprevalent societalonormsoinovogueoatotheotimeoofomarriageoofotheodeceased whichocouldohaveobeenoatoleasto25otoo30oyearsopriorotooherodeathoi.e., inooroaboutotheo1970s. oMoreover,oinotheoabsenceoofomaterial indicatingotootheocontrary,othereoisonooinhibitionotooacceptotheoage ofotheodeceasedoasoperotheoPost-MortemoReport.oThus,oweoare inclinedotoograntoherotheobenefitoofomultiplieroofo14otakingoheroageoas 45oyears.oWithoregardotootheolossoofoloveoandoaffection,oPranayoSethi (supra)ograntsoRs.40,000/-o(RupeesoFortyoThousand)operoheadowith escalationoofo10%oeveryothreeoyearsoforolossoofoconsortiumowhichohas beenointerpretedoinoMagmaoGeneraloInsuranceoCo.oLtd.ovoNanuoRam,

(2018) o 18 o SCC o 130 o to o include o spousal, o parental, o and o filial FAO-3568-2023 11 consortium.oThus,othereobeingofiveoclaimantsotheoamountoshallobe I7s.&2,+++"-oxo(Jowhichocomesotoo7s.%,&+,+++"-o 7upeesoTwooHakhs ando.ortyoThousand$opayableounderotheoheadoofolossoofoloveoand affection.A

¶11In view of the above, referred to judgment, the age of deceased Aabid is ascertained as 25oyears at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 17 instead of 18 as per settled law.

¶12A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the deceasedo was self3 employed, running a furniture shop and was a skilled carpenter with an asserted monthly income of Rs. 35,000/3. In absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the said earnings, the learned Tribunal resorted to minimum wage notification as applicable to unskilled labourer in the State of Haryana. The learned tribunal completely overlooked the statement of PW 1 (wife of the deceased) and the fact that he was a skilled carpenter. Therefore, income of skilled person is to be taken into consideration. As per the notified minimum wages applicable to skilled workers during the relevant period, the correct monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 10,969/3. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant may be reasonably rounded off and reassessed at R$(11>000?-.

¶13A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd as expenses for personal expenditure. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has granted meagre amount under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court. FAO-3568-2023 12 CONC2U3ION

¶14In 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

06.02.2023 is modified accordingly. The appellants3claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as per the calculations made here3under:3 Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded No. 1 Monthly Income Rs.11000/3 2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4400/3 (40% of 11000) 3 Deduction towards personal Rs.5133/3 (15400X 1/3rd) expenditure 1/3rd

¶4Total Income Rs.10267/3(1540035133) 4 Multiplier 18 5 Annual Dependency Rs.22,17,672/3 (10267X12X18) 6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/3 7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/3 8 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200/3 Spousal : Rs. 48,400/3x1 Filial : Rs. 48,400/3x1 Parental : Rs. 48,400/3x1 T" a/oC",.!)$a ;") R$(23>-->182?- D!0*+ ;")o R$(18>63>600?- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal E)=a)+!0oa,"*) R$(5>35>582?-o(23--182-1863600)

¶15So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 201-oACJo3186 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation o(2022)o5 3*.%!,!oC"*% oCa$!$o108> othe appellants3claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. FAO-3568-2023 13

¶16Respondent No. 33Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants, as per award dated 06.02.2023. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶17Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ooooooooooooo ooo oo(3UDEEPTIo3HARMA) 1-(01(2026 ooJUDGEo Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non3speaking : Yes/No