Sanchayita Lahkar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal held that the computation of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal warranted modification on account of incorrect deductions towards personal expenses and failure to account for statutory entitlements under conventional heads. It was recorded that the deceased was survived not only by his spouse and minor child but also by his mother, thereby requiring the application of a one-fourth deduction rather than one-third. The Court further observed that the child, though unborn at the time of the accident, was entitled to be treated as a dependent under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Upon examining the factual matrix in light of binding precedents, the Court proceeded to reassess the compensation payable in accordance with settled legal principles.

The proceedings arose out of cross appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal. The appeals were filed by the legal heirs of Rakesh Kumar, who died in a road accident on 30 September 2015, and by Rameshwar, the driver of the vehicle held responsible for the accident.

Also Read: Courts have authority to determine rate of interest. Appellants having suffered a delay of five decades are entitled to compensation: Supreme Court

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹8,84,000 to the claimants and held Rameshwar liable for the amount, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

The deceased was riding a motorcycle when it was struck by a Mahindra tractor, bearing registration number HR-08-D-2716, allegedly driven in a negligent manner by Rameshwar. As a result of the impact, Rakesh Kumar sustained multiple injuries and was declared dead on arrival at Government Hospital, Kaithal. An FIR was registered the following day under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The legal representatives of the deceased, including his wife and mother, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the grounds that the deceased had a higher income than estimated, and that compensation under several conventional heads was not granted.

Sudesh Kumar, brother of the deceased, appeared as an eyewitness (PW2) and deposed that Rameshwar was driving the tractor rashly and fled the scene after the collision, leaving the vehicle behind. He confirmed that the tractor was taken into police custody from the accident site and that the FIR was registered promptly. The Court noted that the delay of one day in filing the FIR was not material and cited Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others, (2011) 4 SCC 693, to support the principle that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to disbelieve the claimants’ case.

The Tribunal had assumed the income of the deceased to be ₹6,000 per month, treating him as a casual labourer due to lack of documentary evidence regarding his earnings from a building material shop. However, the High Court took note of the minimum wage notifications applicable in Haryana at the relevant time. It recorded that “Minimum wage notified by the Government of Haryana, w.e.f., 01.07.2015 for unskilled labour was ₹5,886 per month. By virtue of notification dated 21.10.2015, the State Government revised the minimum monthly wage for unskilled labour to ₹7,600 w.e.f. 01.11.2015.”

Given that the accident occurred on 30 September 2015, the Court held that a reasonable assumption of income could be ₹7,200 per month. Further, the Tribunal had made a one-third deduction towards personal expenses, considering three dependents. However, the High Court found that the deceased was also survived by his mother, who had filed the claim petition as next friend of the minor child. On this basis, it held that a one-fourth deduction would be appropriate.

Justice Sehgal stated: “It is a matter of record that the deceased was also survived by his mother, who had filed the claim petition as a guardian/next friend of the minor child. Therefore, deduction of 1/4th has to be made from the income of the deceased.”

Referring to Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Court upheld the multiplier of 18 as correctly applied by the Tribunal, based on the age of the deceased. The Court then considered the issue of conventional heads such as loss of estate and consortium. It found that no compensation had been awarded under these heads, which it deemed necessary to rectify.

The Court observed that Rakesh Kumar’s wife was pregnant at the time of the accident, and a male child was born on 18 November 2015, approximately two months after the death of the deceased. The Court held that “even though the child was in the mother’s womb on the day of the unfortunate accident, he will also be entitled to compensation under the MV Act.”

Justice Sehgal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and applied them to enhance the compensation under the conventional heads.

The Court computed the revised compensation under the following structure:

The monthly income of the deceased was taken as ₹7,200, to which future prospects of 40% were added, amounting to ₹2,880, leading to a total monthly income of ₹10,080. After a one-fourth deduction towards personal expenditure (₹2,520), the net monthly income was ₹7,560. Applying the multiplier of 18, the annual dependency came to ₹16,32,960.

 Also Read: OCI Cards Cannot Be Cancelled Arbitrarily Without Giving a Hearing: Delhi High Court

In addition to this, ₹1,44,000 was awarded towards loss of consortium (₹48,000 each for three claimants), ₹18,000 towards funeral expenses, and ₹18,000 for loss of estate. The revised total compensation thus arrived at ₹18,12,960. After deducting the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, the Court ordered an enhancement of ₹9,29,000.

Concluding the matter, the Court passed the following operative order:

“Accordingly, appellants are held to an additional compensation of ₹9,29,000 (rounded off), which shall be payable to the appellants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition.”

The Court disposed of both appeals accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Sanjay Verma, Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Krishna and Another v. Rameshwar and Others (FAO-2800-2017)
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:031708
Case Number: FAO-2800-2017 and FAO-3497-2017 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Suvir Sehgal

[Read/Download order]