Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Fatality; Reassesses Income and Awards Additional Amount to Claimants
Case Name: Nirmala and Others vs. Joginder Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: FAO-4042-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants on account of the death of Lakhpat Singh @ Lakhat Singh in a motor vehicular accident, holding that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the income, in applying the deduction for personal expenses, and in granting inadequate amounts under conventional heads. The Court reassessed the monthly income at ₹15,000, applied a one-third deduction in view of two dependents, recalculated loss of dependency by applying multiplier seven, corrected amounts under consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, and granted an enhancement of ₹2,66,100 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Summary: The claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, which had assessed ₹7,07,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court noted that the sole issue was confined to the quantum of compensation.
The Court examined the settled legal principles governing compensation determination, including the standards laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, as extensively reproduced in the impugned award. It reiterated the law relating to deduction for personal expenses, selection of multiplier, assessment of conventional heads, and future prospects.
The Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s income at ₹10,000 per month, despite a claim of ₹50,000 per month as an agriculturist. The Court found that although the jamabandi on record did not prove the alleged higher income, the Tribunal erred in arbitrarily fixing ₹10,000. Applying the principles set out in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur and K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court held that in cases where agricultural income is the only source, attendant circumstances and managerial value of agricultural operations must be considered. After evaluating the evidence, the Court reassessed the income of the deceased at ₹15,000 per month.
The post-mortem report on page 9 of the judgment excerpts disclosed the deceased’s age as 65 years, which the Court accepted in accordance with the principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sunita v. Vinod Singh. The Court therefore applied multiplier seven, as correctly done by the Tribunal.
Regarding deductions, the Court noted that only two dependents survived the deceased, and therefore one-third, rather than one-fourth, of the income ought to have been deducted towards personal and living expenses, as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. The Tribunal had also erred in awarding meagre amounts under the heads of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and failed to grant any amount towards loss of estate. The Court corrected these errors by applying the updated conventional figures with the mandated escalation.
The recalculated compensation was set out formally in the judgment, resulting in total compensation of ₹9,73,100. After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹7,07,000, the net enhancement came to ₹2,66,100.
Decision: The appeal was allowed. The award dated 13.05.2024 was modified. The claimants were held entitled to a total compensation of ₹9,73,100, resulting in an enhanced amount of ₹2,66,100 payable by the Insurance Company, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal within two months, which would disburse the same in accordance with the apportionment already determined.