Loss Cannot Be Measured In Golden Scales | Punjab And Haryana HC Enhances Compensation For Child And Homemaker’s Death
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Archana Puri has held that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in connection with a fatal motor accident and related injury claims was inadequate and warranted enhancement in accordance with judicial precedents and statutory provisions. The Court enhanced the compensation for the deaths of two victims and the injuries sustained by two others, holding that just and reasonable compensation must be awarded having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Court further ruled that the registered owner and the insurer are jointly liable to satisfy the enhanced amounts and disallowed the insurer's claim for recovery rights. The appeals were consequently allowed.
The matter arose from four appeals filed by the claimant’s seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for fatalities and injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 10 March 2012. The accident occurred when Hakam, accompanied by his wife Memuna, daughter Sahila, and sister-in-law Rabina, was travelling by motorcycle to attend a religious function. Near the Rajasthan Canal Shah Chokha bridge, a JCB operated in a rash and negligent manner by respondent Arshad struck the motorcycle while attempting to lift an iron pipe, causing all four to fall. Memuna and Sahila succumbed to their injuries, while Hakam and Rabina sustained injuries.
The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, held that the accident had been caused by the negligent driving of the JCB by respondent Arshad and determined compensation under separate heads for each claimant. However, only the claimants filed appeals seeking enhancement, with none of the respondents challenging the Tribunal’s findings.
For Sahila, aged three at the time of her death, the Tribunal adopted a notional annual income of Rs.15,000 and applied a multiplier of 15, awarding Rs.2,95,000, which included amounts for loss of love and affection and last rites.
For Memuna, a homemaker aged 21 as per the Tribunal’s consideration, an assumed monthly income of Rs.4,500 was adopted. After deducting one-third for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was calculated. Adding conventional amounts for last rites, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,37,000.
Regarding Hakam, the Tribunal noted that no substantial medical evidence or bills had been produced and awarded Rs.5,000 for his injuries.
For Rabina, based on proved medical bills totalling Rs.44,360 and conventional amounts for pain, suffering and transportation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.59,360.
The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum on all amounts from the date of filing till realisation. The liability was fixed jointly and severally on the driver, owner, and insurer. However, the Tribunal granted the insurer recovery rights against the owner and driver.
In the appeal, claimants argued that the amounts awarded, particularly for deceased minor Sahila and housewife Memuna, were inadequate and did not align with established precedents. They cited judgments, including Kishan Gopal v. Lala, Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, and Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, to contend that the notional incomes and multipliers used should be revisited. They also submitted that compensation for loss of consortium, funeral expenses and future prospects required reconsideration based on prevailing law.
The respondent-insurer argued that the owner should bear liability, relying on the alleged sale of the vehicle. However, it was undisputed that the vehicle remained registered in the name of respondent Sawan Singh Panwar. The insurer also supported the Tribunal’s grant of recovery rights.
Justice Archana Puri examined the matter in the context of binding judicial precedents governing assessment of compensation for children, housewives, and injury claims.
On Sahila's claim, the Court stated: “In view of the case law and also taking into consideration the date of accident, it is just and appropriate to take notional income of deceased Sahila as Rs.30,000/- per annum, including future prospects.”
The Court applied a multiplier of 15 and determined the loss of dependency as Rs.4,50,000. Considering enhancement clauses and applicable conventional heads, the Court stated: “Loss of consortium works out to be Rs.48,400/- and funeral expenses payable comes to be Rs.18,150/-.”
Accordingly, the total compensation was computed at Rs.5,16,550. After deducting the Tribunal’s award, the enhanced amount was Rs.2,21,550.
Turning to Memuna’s claim, Justice Archana Puri recorded: “Considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives and number of dependents, earnings of deceased Memuna are taken as Rs.5000/- per month.”
Taking future prospects into account, the Court stated: “Addition of Rs.2000/- is to be made. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, the residue earnings comes to Rs.5250/-.”
The annual income was thus computed at Rs.63,000. Applying the multiplier of 17, the Court determined: “Loss of dependency works out to be Rs.10,71,000/-.”
Following Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance judgments, the Court held: “Loss of consortium for each dependent shall be Rs.48,400/- and, on this count, Rs.2,90,400/- is awarded.”
Amounts of Rs.18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses were also included. Thus, total compensation was computed at Rs.13,97,700 and the enhanced portion came to Rs.7,60,700. It was directed: “Out of enhanced compensation, Hakam shall get Rs.10,700 and five children shall be entitled to Rs.1,50,000 each.”
For injured Hakam, the Court recorded: “The compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded by Tribunal stands enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.”
With respect to Rabina, the Court recorded that proved medical bills amounted to Rs.44,360 and that: “Taking into consideration pain, suffering and special diet, an amount of Rs.30,000 is awarded, making total compensation Rs.89,360/-.”
Finally, regarding liability, the Court stated: “Registered owner continues to remain liable despite alleged sale of offending vehicle.”
Quoting the Supreme Court decision in Naveen Kumar’s case, the Court observed: “So long as name continues in RTO records, he remains liable.”
Thus, liability was fastened on the driver, registered owner and insurer, jointly and severally, but recovery rights of the insurer were disallowed.
The Court allowed the appeals and re-determined the compensation amounts payable to the appellants. It recorded that the enhanced compensation, after deducting the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, stood at Rs.2,21,550, Rs.7,60,700, Rs.10,000, and Rs.89,360 respectively.
The Court held that the liability to pay the reworked compensation shall rest solely upon respondents No.1, 2, and 4, being the driver, the registered owner, and the insurer of the offending vehicle.
It further concluded that the insurance company was not entitled to recovery rights, noting that such entitlement had been erroneously granted by the Tribunal.
The Court directed that interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be paid on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the present appeals until realization.
All the appeals were accordingly allowed and any pending civil miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba; Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta; Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for Respondent 4
Case Title: Rabina and Others v. Arshad and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:058007
Case Number: FAO-10256-2014 (O&M) and connected appeals
Bench: Justice Archana Puri
[Read/Download order]
