Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ₹36.48 Lakh Compensation in Motor Accident; Declines Insurer’s Plea for Refund Despite Excess Award
Case Name: IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaskirat & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: FAO-5222-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, which had awarded ₹36,48,752 with 9% interest to the claimants. Justice Sudeepti Sharma found no merit in the insurer’s objections regarding age determination and dependency but accepted that future prospects should have been added at 40% instead of 50% as per Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680. However, since the compensation had already been disbursed, the Court—relying on Usha Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Law Finder Doc ID: 1673911)—ruled that the excess amount could not be recovered from the claimants.
Summary: The deceased, Harvinder Singh, aged 30, died in a 2013 accident. The Tribunal based the award on an income of ₹14,700 per month as per his 2012–13 ITR, adding 50% future prospects and applying a multiplier of 17, totaling ₹36,48,752. The insurer contended that the deceased’s age was incorrectly taken as 30 instead of 31 and that his parents were wrongly treated as dependents. The Court, citing Sunita v. Vinod Singh (2025 INSC 366), held that the post-mortem report was the most reliable indicator of age and upheld the Tribunal’s assessment. It further noted that under Indian socio-familial norms, parents could be deemed dependents even if not entirely financially reliant.
The Court agreed that the Tribunal erred in applying 50% instead of 40% for future prospects but observed that recovery of already disbursed compensation would be inequitable. Citing Usha Devi and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Neelam (FAO-1307-2014), it reiterated that once compensation is received, refund cannot be ordered to avoid hardship to claimants.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the ₹36.48 lakh compensation and ruled that the amount already released to claimants shall not be recovered, though noting that future awards must adhere to the 40% norm for future prospects.