Gurnam Singh & Anr. vs Dalvinder Singh & Ors.

Parmod Goyal, J.

Present appeals have been filed by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved by award dated 18.09.2000 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation. Since the present appeals have arisen from common impugned award passed by learned Tribunal vide which nine claim petitions preferred on account of motor vehicular accident dated 12.12.1996 caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving Matador bearing registration No.DL-4C-B-1609, were decided and dispute involved in all the appeals is identical, hence, they are being decided by way of this common judgment.

In accident dated 12.12.1996 four children including Gurnam Singh, Karnail Singh and Vikramjit had died and five children including Navpreet and Baljeet had suffered injuries. Out of nine petitions, five claimants had preferred appeals. Gist of appeals being decided is as under :-

Appellants-claimants have challenged the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on the ground that learned Tribunal had wrongly assessed the compensation on lump-sum basis without determining potential income of deceased children and has failed to apply correct multiplier and future prospects while determining loss of dependency. It is asserted that just and sufficient compensation has not been granted under conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Injured-claimants, on the other hand, have also sought enhancement being aggrieved by quantum of compensation.

Issue as to whether in case of minor, potential income can be taken along with future prospects and whether multiplier would be applicable in such case is not res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 2800 had held as under:-

In Birbal & Anr. Vs. Bhalla & Ors., FAO No.3408 of 2004, decided on 03.02.2026, by this Court the multiplier method for children of different age group was adopted by this Court. It was held as under :-

Therefore, in all the appeals bearing Nos. MACT No.185 of 1997/FAO No. 5063 of 2001, MACT No.183 of 1997/FAO No.5064 of 2001 and MACT No.184 of 1997/FAO No.5067 of 2001 noted above, claimants are entitled to seek compensation for loss of dependency. Loss of dependency needs to be determined by taking potential/notional income as per minimum wages payable at the time of accident. Loss of dependency has to determined by adding future prospects and by applying appropriate multiplier.

Admittedly, deceased Vikramjit Singh who was aged 08 years, deceased Karnail Singh was aged 10 years, deceased Bhupesh was aged 05 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased), were students and not earning therefore, the potential income of deceased persons has to be taken equivalent to minimum wages payable to unskilled worker.

Accordingly, the income of the deceased is taken as ₹1,500/-per month which were minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident.

In order to determine loss of dependency, 40% of notional income needs to be added as future prospects in terms of mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs. The Oriential Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (supra). Since, children were unmarried and were survived by LRs, the deduction in the present case would be 50% of income in view of principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121.

This Court in case titled as Birbal & Anr. Vs. Bhalla & Ors., (supra) had held that multiplier method for children of different age group has to be applied. Children falling in age group of 15 to 20 years were held entitled to multiplier of ‘18’, children falling in the age group of 11 to 14 were held entitled to multiplier of ‘15’, children falling in the age group of 6 to 10 were held entitled to multiplier of ‘12’, children falling in the age group of 3 to 5 were held entitled to multiplier of ‘10’ and children falling in the age group of 0 to 3 were held entitled to multiplier of ‘9’.

Accordingly, in case of Vikramjit Singh and Karnail Singh who were aged 08 years and 10 years respectively, multiplier of ‘12’ would be applicable whereas in case of Bhupesh aged 5 years multiplier of ‘10’ shall be applicable.

Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate in each of appeal. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants-claimants, appellants-claimants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard.

Compensation payable to appellants-claimants in FAO No.5063 of 2001 is as under :-

Compensation payable to appellant-claimant in FAO No.5064 of 2001 is as under:-

appeal) – Rs.90,000/-(as awarded by the Tribunal)

Compensation payable to appellant-claimant in FAO No.2817 of 2000 is as under:-

Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation (except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant has sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that :-

It is the case of appellant-claimant that she had suffered multiple injuries on account of accident. It was asserted that the appellant-claimant received injuries on her head and on other body parts. After the accident she was admitted in PGI Chandigarh on 12.12.1996 till 20.12.1996. In order to prove nature of injury and period of hospitalization PW5– Gurnam Singh father of the injured proved the discharge card Ex P-1. According to the discharge card Ex P1 injured had suffered fracture of shaft hemerus (R) side and of Ulna (R) side.

Keeping in view nature and extent of injuries, period of hospitalization and nature of treatment, it is clearly made out that the appellant-claimant had suffered grievous injuries i.e. fractures. Accordingly, in absence of any bills, appellant-claimant is entitled to consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation. Since, appellant-claimant had suffered fractures on account of accident, therefore, it is clearly made out that she must have suffered immense pain and sufferings. Accordingly, appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of studies quantified as Rs.5,000/- Accordingly, appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and enhanced compensation of Rs.31,000/-.

Learned counsel for injured-appellant-claimant has sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that:-

Appellant-claimant had suffered multiple injuries on account of accident. It was asserted that the appellant-claimant received fracture of left arm and right leg and also received injuries on his face. It is further asserted that due to the injury suffered the injured was limping while walking. It is also asserted that the injured was having pain while urination. After the accident he was treated in Kurukshetra later taken to PGI Chandigarh. It was asserted that the injured that spent Rs.70,000/- on his treatment. In order to prove nature of injury, nature of treatment and period of hospitalization PW6 – Balvinder Singh father of the injured proved the treatment slips ExP7 & P8. According to the OPD ticket Ex P1 of PGI Chandigarh injured suffered fracture of right leg. As per document ExP8 issued by Anand Orthopeadic Centre injured had suffered fracture of B/B leg (R).

Keeping in view nature and extent of injuries, period of hospitalization and nature of treatment, it is clearly made out that the appellant-claimant had suffered grievous injuries i.e. fracture. Accordingly, in absence of any bills, appellant-claimant is entitled to consolidated amount of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation. Since, appellant-claimant had suffered fracture on account of accident, therefore, it is clearly made out that she must have suffered immense pain and sufferings. Accordingly, appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs.60,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Appellant-caimant shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of studies quantified as Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.80,000/- and enhanced compensation of Rs.51,000/-.

Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with interest over enhanced amount to the extent of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The liability of respondents to pay compensation shall be as per award.

Present appeals are allowed in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.