The New India Assurance Company vs Reema Devi & Ors.

Virender Singh, Judge

The abovetitled appeals are being disposed of by the common judgment, as all these appeals have arisen out of the accident, which, according to the admitted case of the parties, had taken place on 24.09.2014, involving passenger bus No.HP69A5103 (hereinafter referred as ‘the offending vehicle’).

These appeals are being segregated in two different categories, i.e., CategoryI will contain 23 appeals, preferred by the New India Assurance Company, and; CategoryII will contain 10 appeals preferred by the petitioners, for enhancement of the compensation.

The Insurance Company has filed 23 appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act) against the awards, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur; learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sundernagar, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, while allowing the claim petitions, the liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

This Court would first decide the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, by taking FAO No.548 of 2016, as lead case.

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, against the award dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No.05/2 of 2015, titled as ‘Reema Devi and Others vs. Meena Kumari and Others’.

By way of the award dated 01.09.2016, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 to 4, by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.12,71,600/, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company, with a direction to deposit the amount within a period of two months, failing which, the Insurance Company has also been held liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of award.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:

When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. Owner of the offending vehiclerespondent No.1, has filed her separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; claim petition is incomplete, vague and does not disclose any cause of action; the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, by way of a commercial package policy; and the accident, according to her, had taken place due to the mechanical defect, which suddenly developed in the offending vehicle.

Respondent No.2, driver of the offending vehicle Sunil Kumar, filed his separate reply, in which, he has admitted the factum of accident and registration of the FIR against him. According to him, the accident, in question, had taken place due to some mechanical defect, which had occurred, in the offending vehicle, as, according to him, the tyres of the moving bus had fallen in a pit, as a result of which, a loud noise had occurred, in the vehicle, and there was a large irrigation pipe lying on the road, due to which, he could not negotiate the curve, and the offending vehicle fell into the river. According to him, in the accident, in question, he was neither rash, nor, negligent, but, the same had taken place due to the reasons, as mentioned in the reply.

Respondent No.3, Insurance company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation, as, the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply, by the owner, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident; the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply without any fitness certificate, route permit and registration certificate, at the relevant time; the offending vehicle was carrying more than the double of its capacity; the petition is not maintainable; and that the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2.

On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied for want of knowledge.

Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 09.04.2015:

On the same day, the application, under Section 170 of M.V. Act, moved by the Insurance Company, was allowed by the learned Tribunal.

After the closure of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, as referred to above.

Feeling aggrieved from the said award, Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, assailing the liability to pay the amount of compensation; mainly, on the ground that as per the FIR Ex.RW1/A, there were more than 45 passengers travelling in the offending vehicle, out of which, 25 persons had died and 19 persons were seriously injured.

According to the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation, along with up to date interest, as, while deciding issue No.5, learned Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the driving license of Shri Sunil Kumar, which has been produced, on record Ex.RW1/E is not proved to be fake.

The said findings, according to the appellant Insurance Company, are not based upon evidence, produced on record, by the Insurance Company, as such, the same require interference by this Court.

As per the case of the appellantInsurance Company, the evidence has been produced by the Company to prove that the driving license possessed by driver of the offending vehicle was fake. According to the Insurance Company, it has been proved that the driver of the offending vehicle had produced, on record the driving license No. DL/N/1290/2009/2010, issued on 11.04.2009 and the police, on its investigation, found the said license to be fake and accordingly, FIR No. 201 dated 27.09.2004 (sic) was separately registered against the driver, under Sections 420, 407, 471, 474 of the Indian Penal Code, against respondent No.2.

The award has further been assailed on the ground that the evidence of the Insurance Company, especially, the statements of RW3 and RW4, are sufficient to conclude that the driver was possessing fake driving license. According to the Insurance Company, RW4 is the concerned official, from the office of RLA Una, from where, the driving license of respondent No.2 was issued. He has categorically stated that the driving license, pertaining to the said number, has been issued, by the Authority to one Shri Arun, son of Shri Balram Kumar, whereas, the name of driver of the offending vehicle is Sunil Kumar son of Nand Lal. The driver, Sunil Kumar has not appeared, in the witness box to support his defence, as such, the adverse inference is to be drawn against respondent No.2 by concluding that the case set up by him the reply is not correct.

The award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company, as, it has been proved that there were total 45 passengers, travelling in the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, whereas, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was ‘21+2’. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in NIC versus Anjana Shayam reported as 2007 ACJ 2129, the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the Company is liable to pay compensation, only in respect of the number of passengers, who are covered under the Insurance Policy, as per the registration certificate.

The other ground, on which the award has been assailed, is that issue No.1 has also wrongly been decided, by the learned Tribunal, as it has not been proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same, in a rash and negligent manner.

The award has further been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that there was overloading of the offending vehicle, which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

In addition to this, the awarded amount has also been stated to be on the higher side and it has been prayed that the same may kindly be reduced.

On the basis of the above facts, Shri B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Himalvi Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by exonerating the Insurance Company from paying the amount of compensation and the awarded amount may kindly be reduced, accordingly.

Per contra, learned counsel representing the owner and driver has supported the award and prayed that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and has rightly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal.

Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also supported the award, but, prayed that the ‘just compensation’ has not been awarded to the petitioners. As such, it has been prayed that the same may kindly be enhanced, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’.

In order to decide the controversy, involved in the present case, it will be just and appropriate for this Court, to discuss the oral, as well as, documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, before the learned Tribunal.

After framing of the issues, the petitioners have examined PW1 HC Mahender Singh, who has proved the copy of the FIR No.199/14, dated 24.09.2014, under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC, and Section 189 M.V. Act, as Ex.PW1/A. This witness neither had written the FIR, nor, investigated the matter.

In the cross examination by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, this witness has admitted that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ghumarwin against respondent No.2, Sunil Kumar. He has also admitted that against Sunil Kumar, a separate FIR has already been registered, however, chargesheet, in the said FIR, has not yet been filed. Lastly, he has deposed that in the accident, in question, 25 people had died and 19 were injured.

PW2, Rajinder Kumar has been examined as eye witness to the accident. According to him, on 24.09.2014, he was travelling in the offending vehicle. When, the offending vehicle reached near Rahain, then, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same at a very high speed and could not control the same, due to which, the offending vehicle rolled down from the road. The accident, in question, had taken place due to negligence of the driver. There were total 2022 people, travelling in the bus, some of the persons were pedestrians and some people were fishing. The bus had fallen upon the persons who were fishing. This witness had boarded the bus from a place known as Chhat. He has also admitted that the construction of four laning was going on. He has admitted that he has heard the noise of breaking some part.

PW3, Reema Devi deposed about the factual position, as contained in the claim petition. Her evidence, qua the accident, in question, is not relevant, as, she has admitted that the accident, in question, had not taken place in her presence.

PW4, Mani Ram has also been examined by the petitioners to prove the accident, in question. This witness has deposed that the accident, in question, had taken place due to the fast driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as he could not control the same. This witness was also travelling in the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, there were about 2022 passengers in the offending vehicle.

PW5, Praduman Kumar has deposed that Piare Lal was performing the religious ceremonies, as such, he was earning Rs.25,000/ Rs.30,000/.

To rebut this evidence, respondent No.1, Meena Kumari, appeared in the witness box and filed her affidavit, Ex.RW1/A, in which, she has deposed that respondent No.2 was employed, as driver on the offending vehicle and when he was employed, as driver, his driving license was checked, by this witness, which was issued from RLA Una. She has conducted his driving test and assuming his license to be genuine, she has employed Sunil as driver. Respondent No.2, Sunil was earlier working as driver with Krishan Gopal. She has further deposed that the accident, in question, had taken place due to the mechanical defect, which, all of a sudden, had occurred, in the offending vehicle, resulting in casualty of 18 to 20 persons. Lastly, she has deposed that the documents of the offending vehicle were in order, including the driving license of Sunil.

This witness has tendered in evidence the copy of RC Ex.RW1/B, copy of route permit Ex.RW1/C, copy of insurance policy Ex.RW1/D, copy of DL Ex.RW1/E and time table Ex.RW1/F.

In the crossexamination, this witness has deposed that she is matriculate and she is in the business of transportation from the last 23 years. She has engaged respondent No.2, as driver, on the salary of Rs.6000/, per month and in addition to this, Rs.100/ per day, were being paid to him as daily expenses. She has denied the suggestion that she was knowing the fact that the driving license of Sunil was forged. Voluntarily stated that his driving license was valid. She has feigned her ignorance that a person, who is having a valid license, owner used to pay Rs.15,000/ per month. The bus owned by Krishan Gopal was being plied on Bilaspur to Jamthal route. This witness has not checked the driving license of Sunil online. But, voluntarily stated that she had compared the license of Sunil with the license of her husband and assuming the same, as correct, Sunil was employed. She has denied the suggestion that she was aware about the fact that the driving license of Sunil was forged and despite this fact, she had employed Sunil as driver. She has feigned her ignorance about the fact that the police lodged FIR against Sunil, for possessing forged license. Sunil was employed, by her, in the month of January 2014. She has further deposed that when, Sunil was employed, she and her husband had checked his license.

RW2 Krishan Gopal deposed that he is transporter by profession and running the business under the name and style of Vande Mataram Bus Service. In the month of September 2013, he had employed Sunil alias Sonu, as driver, on bus No.HP697621. Prior to engaging him, as driver, his driving test was conducted and his license was checked, which was issued from RLA Una and considering the same, to be genuine, he was employed as driver. Sunil Kumar had worked with him for 23 months. Thereafter, he has joined the services, as driver, on the offending vehicle.

In the cross examination, this witness has deposed that Sunil Kumar drove bus No.HP69A7621 on Bilaspur to Jamthal route and he was satisfied with his driving skill. He used to pay Rs.6000/ per month to Sunil. After working for a period of two months with him, he has left the job, as, he was not satisfied with the salary. He has denied the suggestion that services of Sunil were terminated, when, this witness came to know about the fact that his driving license was forged. Lastly, this witness has deposed that when, he had hired the services of Sunil, his driving test was got conducted and his driving license was also checked.

RW3, HC Mohinder No.53 deposed that FIR No.201 dated 27.09.2014 has been lodged with Police Station Ghumarwin, against Sunil Kumar, under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 IPC and produced the copy of the same, as Ex.RW3/A. The investigation of the case was conducted by ASI Jagpal.

RW4 Kehar Singh, Kanoongo from the office of SDM Una deposed that D.L. No.DL/N/1290/20092010, has been issued, by their office, in the name of Shri Arun son of Balram Kumar resident of Village Dehla, Tehsil and District Una, on 03.11.2009 and said license has not been issued on 11.04.2009, in the name of any other person. He has proved the abstract of the driving license as Ex.RW4/A.

In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that he did not deal with the registering and licensing matters. He has not brought the record of 11.04.2009. Voluntarily stated that he has brought the record, which is generally mentioned in the summons. He has not brought the record of driving license DL No.1200 dated 11.04.2009.

So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.PW1/A is copy of FIR No.199 dated 24.09.2014 registered with Police Station Ghumarwin, Ex.PW3/B is the copy of the death certificate of Piare Lal, Ex.PW3/C is the copy of the postmortem report, Ex.PW3/D is the copy of Parivar register, Ex.RW1/B is the copy of the registration certificate, Ex.RW1/C is the copy of part B, Ex.RW1/D is the copy of the insurance policy, Ex.RW1/E is the copy of the driving license of Sunil, Ex.RW1/F is the copy of the time table, Ex.RW3/A is the copy of the FIR No.201 of 2014, dated 27.09.2014, registered, under Sections 420, 407, 471, 474 IPC, and Ex.RW4/A is the abstract of the driving license.

This is the entire evidence led by the parties, before the learned Tribunal.

Perusal of the record shows that the Insurance Company has moved the application, under Section 11 Rule 12 of the CPC on 31.03.2016. This said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 28.04.2016. The said application was moved by the Insurance Company after closing its evidence, on 03.03.2016.

The application, under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC, although, has been held to be not maintainable, but, even otherwise, if the said application is held to be maintainable, then, considering the stage of the proceedings, when the application was filed, it can be said that the Insurance Company was not serious to obtain the original driving license of respondent No.2, as according to the applicant, there is only photocopy of the driving license, which has been placed on record, without comparing the same with original.

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to what object the Insurance Company was going to achieve, by moving the application, at the belated stage, when, the case was listed for arguments.

As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that despite moving the application, under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC, before the learned Tribunal, the original driving license was not ordered to be produced on the record.

In this case, the Insurance Company has sought exoneration from indemnifying the owner, on account of the fact that the driving license of the driver, so produced, by the owner as Ex.RW1/E was found to be fake and in this regard, FIR, under Sections 420, 467, 471 & 474 IPC has been registered against driver Sunil Kumar, son of Nand Lal.

By examining RW3, this fact has been probablized by the Insurance Company, as, this witness, on oath, has categorically stated that FIR No.201 dated 27.09.2014 was registered with Police Station Ghumarwin, against Sunil Kumar, son of Nand Lal, however, the said case was stated to be under investigation, when, this witness appeared in the witness box on 17.12.2015.

Not only this, Insurance Company has also examined RW4 Kesar Singh, to prove the fact that the Driving Licence No.DL/N/1290/20092010, has been issued by their office, in the name of Arun son of Balram Kumar and same has not been issued in the name of any other person and has produced certificate Ex.RW4/A.

No doubt, the Insurance Company has probablized the fact that the driving license, copy of which has been tendered, by the owner, as Ex. RW1/E, was found to be fake and not issued by the authority, which has purportedly been shown to have issued the same.

In this factual background, now, this Court would proceed to consider the fact whether the facts, that the driving license Ex.RW1/E was found to be fake and FIR under Sections 420, 467, 471, 474 IPC, has been registered, against respondent No. 2, would be sufficient to exonerate the Insurance Company from paying the amount of compensation, by holding that there is fundamental breach of insurance policy.

The driver of the offending vehicle has not bothered to put appearance, in the witness box, nor, has he been summoned, by the Insurance Company to prove the fundamental breach of the insurance policy. As such, the evidence of owner Smt. Meena Kumari assumes significance, in this regard.

Respondent No.1 Meena Kumari, in her reply, has categorically taken a stand that she had engaged the services of Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, as driver, on the offending vehicle, after checking and inspecting his driving license. Not only this, she has also pleaded that Sunil Kumar @ Sonu was driving the bus for the last twothree years, from the date, when, she filed the reply on 21.03.2015.

When the owner appeared, in the witness box, as RW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.RW1/A, she has specifically got recorded, in her affidavit that Sunil was engaged, by her, on the offending vehicle, in the month of January 2014, and when, his services were hired, his driving license was perused, which was issued by RLA, Una. Thereafter, his driving test was conducted and his driving license was presumed to be genuine, as such, he was engaged. Not only this, she has deposed that prior to engaging the services of Sunil alias Sonu, he was working with Krishan Gopal on Vande Matram bus.

When, the suggestion was given to this witness, by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that she was aware about the fact that the driving license of Sunil was forged, she has denied the said suggestion and stated that his license was genuine. She has admitted that she has not checked the driving license of Sunil online, but, genuinely stated that she compared the license of Sunil with the license of her husband and presuming the same to be genuine, she has engaged his services. Even, in the crossexamination, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, she has reiterated the fact that while engaging Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, as driver, she and her husband checked his license.

Respondent No.1, has also examined Krishan Gopal as RW2, with whom, Sunil was earlier working, as driver. RW2 has deposed that in the month of September 2013, he has employed Sunil Kumar @ Sonu as bus driver over the bus No.HP69A7621 and before engaging his services, his driving test was conducted, his license was checked, which was issued by RLA, Una, and after presuming the same to be correct, Sunil Kumar was employed as driver. He has also given a certificate to Sunil by deposing that Sunil was a good driver. Despite lengthy crossexamination, nothing material could be elicited, by the Insurance Company, from this witness.

In order to be absolved from indemnifying the owner, Insurance Company has not only to prove that the driving license of the driver was fake, but, the knowledge of insured is sine qua non. In other words, it can be said that the breach of contract of insurance has to be assumed, when the Insurance Company, could prove that the owner was knowing the fact or reason to believe that the driving license of the driver engaged by him/her is fake and despite knowing the said fact, he or she has handed over the vehicle to such a person to drive the vehicle.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Kthari versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 1193 has held that employer, while hiring a driver, is required to see if driver has a driving licence, prima facie, appearing genuine and he is not expected to ascertain veracity of the same. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

Similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4919 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24933 of 2019), titled as Rishi Pal Singh versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Others, Relevant paragraphs 3 to 9 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as, the evidence so discussed above, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly negated the plea of the Insurance Company to exonerate it from indemnifying the owner. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

In this case, the award has also been assailed on the ground that there is breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the offending vehicle was authorized to carry ‘23’ persons, as per copy of registration certificate Ex.RW1/B and there were more than 44 persons traveling in the offending vehicle, out of which, 25 persons died and 19 sustained injuries.

It has vehemently been argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was overloaded, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation, as respondent No.1 permitted to ply the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

The above submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is not liable to be accepted, as, Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported as, Lakhmi Chand versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, (2016) 3 SCC 100, has held that mere factum of carrying more passengers, than the permitted seating capacity, in the vehicle, does not amount to fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Relevant paragraph 14 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:

Hence, in this case, the learned Tribunal, has rightly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company, to the extent of which, the vehicle was authorized to carry passengers, i.e., 23.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Anjana Shyam, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2870, has held that the Insurance Company would be bound to cover the higher of the awards and will deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Relevant paras 22 and 23 of the judgment, are reproduced as under:

The said view has again been elaborated/ clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited versus K.M. Poonam and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 297. Relevant paragraphs 38 to 40, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

Being guided by the aforesaid decisions, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the highest awards, to the extent of 23 passengers, and in rest of the awards, the Insurance Company shall, at the first instance, pay the compensation amount along with interest, with a right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

As such, the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, as well as, by the owner of the offending vehicle, involved, in the accident, in question, are being disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

In this case, amount of compensation has also been sought to be reduced by the insurance company, whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has sought the enhancement of the compensation amount, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’.

It is no longer res integra that the endeavor of the Court/Tribunal is to grant the ‘just compensation’, as, the provisions of MV Act are beneficial piece of legislation.

In order to achieve the above legislative intent, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the fact whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not.

In the present case, the petitioners are wife, daughters and mother of Shri Piare Lal, who expired in the accident, in question, having taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

The learned Tribunal has taken the age of deceased Piare Lal, as 42 years, on the basis of the postmortem report Ex.PW3/C. Even, in the Parivar Register Ex.PW3/D, his year of birth has been mentioned as 1972 and the accident had taken place on 24.09.2014. Meaning thereby, he was about 42 years at the time of his death.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Piare Lal during his lifetime as Rs.7,000/ per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the approach of the learned Tribunal to assess the earnings on a notional basis is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The ends of justice would be met if the earnings of Shri Piare Lal are taken as Rs.6,000/ per month, by applying the principle that the person working under the MNREGA scheme would be getting Rs. 200/ per day (Rs.6,000/ per month).

The learned Tribunal has given 30% increase, in the earnings of Shri Piare Lal, on account of future prospects. The said findings are also not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held as under:

Admittedly, Piare Lal was working in unorganized sector and his age, at the time of accident was 42 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 25% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 25%, his monthly income comes to Rs.7,500/ (Rs.6,000/ + Rs.1,500/).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, has mandated that out of the total amount of the earnings of the deceased, some amount is required to be deducted, had the person, whose LRs have approached the Court for compensation, been alive. Relevant paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

As such, keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/4^th amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.5,625/ (Rs.7,500/ minus Rs.1,875/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘14’, which is the appropriate multiplier. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.5,625/x12 x 14 = Rs.9,45,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ on account of loss of consortium, and Rs.25,000/ towards ‘funeral charges’. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/, under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/, under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/, under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has mandated that each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 24 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The awarded amount is reduced from Rs.12,71,600/ to Rs.11,35,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 46/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Savitri Devi & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.11,97,500/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization thereof. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The said claim petition has been filed by the petitioners being, mother and brother of Chaman Lal, son of Daulat Ram, who, as per the claim petition, expired on 24.9.2014, in the accident, in question.

According to the petitioners, Chaman Lal was a motorelectric mechanic, agriculturist and horticulturist by profession. As such, he was earning Rs.20,000/ per month.

Petitioner No.1, when appeared in the witness box as PW4 also deposed so. She has proved the salary certificate of her son as Ex.PW4/B, death certificate Ex.PW 4/C, matriculation certificate Ex.PW4/D, computer course certificates Ex.PW4/E and Ex. PW4/F.

By examining PW6, the petitioners have proved that Shri Chaman Lal was working with PW6 Kulwant Singh, who is Proprietor of Power and Controls Company. According to him, he used to pay ₹7,500/ per month to Chaman Lal and proved the certificate Ex. PW4/B.

The learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Chaman Lal, at the time of his death, as 26 years, on the basis of copy of matriculation certificate, in which, his date of birth has been mentioned as 07.09.1988. As such, the said findings, which are based upon documentary evidence, do not require any interference, by this Court.

So far as the income of Shri Chaman Lal is concerned, from the evidence of PW6, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the monthly income of Shri Chaman Lal was Rs.7,500/ per month. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has not given the increase, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra and has given the addition, towards future prospect @ 50%, after deducting the amount towards his personal expenses.

Admittedly, Chaman Lal was working in unorganized sector and his age, at the time of the accident was below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects, had he been alive. Thus, by adding 40%, his monthly income comes to Rs.10,500/ (Rs.7,500/ + Rs.3,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.5,250/ (Rs.10,500/ minus Rs.5,250/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘17’, which is the appropriate multiplier. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.5,250/x12 x17 = Rs.10,71,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral charges and Rs.25,000/ on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.11,97,500/ to Rs.11,81,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 29.07.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 36/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Satya Devi & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.12,02,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Satish Kumar, who expired, in the accident in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Satish Kumar had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 28 years. According to the claimants, he was working in a private firm and earning Rs.30,000/ per month, from all sources.

Petitioners have examined Lalit Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s Pappu Product, 56 Industrial Area, Bilaspur, as PW5, who has deposed that Satish Kumar was working with him as foreman and he used to pay him Rs.8,000/ as salary. In this regard, he has proved the certificate Ex.PW5/A. According to him, Satish Kumar, also used to earn Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/, in addition to this.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Satish Kumar, as 33 years, on the basis of middle standard examination certificate Ex.PW4/D. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Satish Kumar as Rs.8,000/ per month, on the basis of the certificate Ex.PW5/A, as the oral evidence, qua the additional income of the deceased, during his life time, was not supported by any documentary evidence. As such, the said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has wrongly given the addition of 50%, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Shri Satish Kumar was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects, had he been alive. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.11,200/ (Rs.8,000/ + Rs.3,200/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that he was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.5,600/ (Rs.11,200/ minus Rs.5,600/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘16’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.5,600/x12 x 16 = Rs.10,75,200/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/, on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.12,02,000/ to Rs.11,85,200/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.09.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 4/2 of 2015, titled as ‘Kaushalya Devi & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.5,73,056/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being widow and son of Inder Dev, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Inder Dev had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 62 years of age. According to the claimants, he was working as clerk with R.L. Pathak and Shri O.P. Gautam, Advocates and earning Rs.20,000/ per month, from all sources.

In order to prove the earnings of Shri Inder Dev, petitioners have examined Shri R.L. Pathak, Advocate, who has deposed that he used to pay Rs.7,000/ per month to Shri Inder Dev. PW4 Shri O.P. Gautam, Advocate has also deposed that Inder Dev, was working with him, as well as, with Mr. R.L. Pathak, Advocate and PW4 used to pay him Rs.5,000/ per month.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Inder Dev, as 62 years, on the basis of postmortem report Ex.PW 2/A. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Inder Dev, as Rs.8,000/ per month. The said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, no addition is required to be given towards future prospects.

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3^rd amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.5,334/ (Rs.8,000/ minus Rs.2,666/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘7’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.5,334/x12 x 7 = Rs.4,48,056/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.5,73,056/ to Rs.5,58,056/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.08.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 40/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Sheetla & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.10,22,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Karan, who expired, in the accident in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Karan had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 16 years. According to the claimants, he was studying in a private School at Kandraur in +2 Class and his monthly income has been pleaded as Rs.10,000/, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Karan, as 16 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.PW4/C. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Karan, as Rs.6,000/ per month and the learned Tribunal has deducted 50% of the amount of compensation. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law and require an interference, by this Court. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to take the notional income of Shri Karan as Rs.40,000/ per annum.

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.40,000 x 18 = Rs.7,20,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/, on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.10,22,000/ to Rs.8,30,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.08.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 39/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Manjeet Kaur & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.14,27,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Amarjeet, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Amarjeet had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 28 years. According to the claimants, he was Post Graduate in (Political Science) and at the time of his death was pursuing B.Ed., from Gurukul Bharti Chakli. His income has been pleaded Rs.30,000/ per month, from agriculture, Tuition work and other sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Amarjeet, as 28 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.PW4/C. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Amarjeet, as Rs.9,000/ per month. This has been done by the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the statement of petitioner No.1, however, petitioner No.1, could not substantiate the income as Rs.30,000/, on the basis of some documentary evidence. As such, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of Shri Amarjeet Singh, as Rs.9,000/ per month. The said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has given 50% increase, upon the said amount, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Amarjeet was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.12,600/ (Rs.9,000/ + Rs.3,600/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/ (Rs.12,600/ minus Rs.6,300/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘17’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.6,300/x12 x 17 = Rs.12,85,200/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/, on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.14,27,000/ to Rs.13,95,200/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.08.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 45/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Saroj Kumari & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.11,21,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Shashi Pal, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Shashi Pal had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 22 years. According to the claimants, he was pursuing B.Ed., from Shiva College of Education, Ghumarwin. Apart from this, he was agriculturist and Horticulturist and tutor. His income has been pleaded Rs.20,000/ per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Shashi Pal, as 22 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.PW4/E. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Shashi Pal, as Rs.7,000/ per month. The said amount is liable to be enhanced as a young man of 22 years, who was pursuing his studies might be helping his parents. As such, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the earnings of Shri Shashi Pal can be said to be Rs.9,000/ per month. The learned Tribunal has given 50% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Shashi Pal was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.12,600/ (Rs.9,000/ + Rs.3,600/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/ (Rs.12,600/ minus Rs.6,300/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘17’. The said findings are also required to be interfered with, as keeping in view the age of Shashi Pal, the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case is ‘18’. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.6,300/x12 x 18 = Rs.13,60,800/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/, on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.11,21,000/ to Rs.14,70,800/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.09.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 37/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Beena Devi & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.10,22,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Nitesh Gautam, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Nitesh Gautam had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 19 years. According to the claimants, he has done his 10+2 and was pursuing Diploma in Electric Trade from ITI. In addition to this, he used to assist electrician in his contract work and was earning Rs.5,000/. His earning has been pleaded Rs.20,000/, per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Nitesh Gautam, as 19 years. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Nitesh Gautam, as Rs.6,000/, per month. The said findings require interference, as a young man, who was pursuing ITI Diploma in Electric Trade and working as helper with a contractor, who used to pay him Rs.5,000/, as such, he might be contributing Rs.7,000/, per month to his family.

The learned Tribunal has given 50% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Nitesh Gautam was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.9,800/ (Rs.7,000/ + Rs.2,800/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.4,900/ (Rs.9,800/ minus Rs.4,900/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.4,900/x12 x 18 = Rs.10,58,400/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/, on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.10,22,000/ to Rs.11,68,400/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.09.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No.03/2 of 2015, titled as ‘Veena Devi & Others versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.12,06,548/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being widow, sons and mother of Madan Lal, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Madan Lal had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 51 years. According to the claimants, he was self employed and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month, from all sources.

In order to prove the said fact, petitioner No.1, appeared in the witnessbox as PW4 and filed her affidavit, in which, she had deposed that her husband was earning Rs.30,000/ per month from tailoring work and Rs.5,000/ per month from agricultural pursuits. In addition to this, they have examined one Naresh Kumar as PW5, who was working as assistant. He has also deposed that apart from him, two other persons were employed by Madan Lal.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Madan Lal, as 48 years, on the basis of copy of Parivar Register Ex.P1. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Madan Lal, as Rs.8,000/ per month. The said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has given 30% increase, upon the said amount, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Madan Lal was working in unorganized sector and his age has been proved to be 48 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 25% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 25% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.10,000/ (Rs.8,000/ + Rs.2,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3^rd amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.6,667/ (Rs.10,000/ minus Rs.3,333/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘13’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.6,667/x12 x 13 = Rs.10,40,052/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.12,06,548/ to Rs.12,30,052/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.09.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 06/2 of 2015, titled as ‘Rekha Devi & Others versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.21,50,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being widow, mother, daughters and son of Thakur Dass, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Thakur Dass had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 39 years. According to the claimants, he was motor mechanic, agriculturist and horticulturist. His income has been pleaded Rs.25,000/ per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Thakur Dass, as 39 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.PW5/C. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

In order to prove the earning of Shri Thakur Dass, his wife appeared in the witnessbox as PW5, who has filed her affidavit, which is based upon the assertions made in the claim petition. However, she could not produce any record with regard to the fact that Thakur Dass was working as mechanic, during his life time. Apart from this, the petitioners have examined PW2 Anil Kumar, proprietor M/s Happy Motors. He has deposed that Thakur Dass was working with him. He used to pay him Rs.10,000/ and proved the receipts Ex.PW2/A to PW2/E. On the basis of the said documents, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the earnings of Shri Thakur Dass, as Rs.10,000/ per month. The said findings need no interference, by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has given 50% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Thakur Dass was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.14,000/ (Rs.10,000/ + Rs.4,000/).

203.. Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/4th amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.10,500/ (Rs.14,000/ minus Rs.3,500/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘15’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.10,500/x12 x 15 = Rs.18, 90,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and, the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.21,50,000/ to Rs.21,20,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 29.07.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No.41/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Rameshwari & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.10,22,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Pooja Kumari, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Ms. Pooja Kumari had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, her age has been pleaded to be 20 years. According to the claimants, she was pursuing B.A, and was a trained ladies tailor. Her income has been pleaded Rs.20,000/ per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Pooja Kumari, as 19 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.PW4/D. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

As regards, the contribution towards her family by Ms. Pooja Kumari, the learned Tribunal, has taken her contribution/earnings as ₹6,000/ per month.The said amount, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be the value of the multifarious activities done by the grownup girl, in the rural area, that too, round the clock, towards her family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering its decision in Kirti & Others versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, 2021 (1) ACJ 1, has held in Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Others versus Surjeet & Others, reported in 2026 INSC 634, that the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be taken as Rs.30,000/ per month. Relevant paragraphs 15 to 20, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under :

Since, the accident, in question, had taken place in the year 2014, this Court is of the view that in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s case (supra), ends of justice would be met, if the contribution of Ms. Pooja Kumari, during her life time is taken, as Rs.10,000/, per month.

The learned Tribunal has fallen into error by giving 50% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court.

Admittedly, Ms. Pooja Kumari was working in unorganized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects, had she been alive. Thus, by adding 40% of her monthly income, the same comes to Rs.14,000/ (Rs.10,000/ + Rs.4,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, her monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/ (Rs.14,000/ minus Rs.7,000/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.7,000/x12 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/, on account of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.10,22,000/ to Rs.16,22,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 29.07.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 35/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Dropati Devi & Others versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.38,96,612/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being widow, mother, sons and daughter of Nathu Ram, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Nathu Ram had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 49 years. According to the claimants, he was Government employee. His income has been pleaded Rs. 55,000/ per month, from all sources.

The petitioners, in order to prove the earnings of Shri Nathu Ram, during his life time, have examined Mehar Singh, Junior Assistant, CMO Office Bilaspur, who has proved the salary certificate of Shri Nathu Ram, for the month of August 2014, as Ex.PW3/A, in which, his salary has been mentioned as Rs.24,797/.

Although, in this case, petitioner No.1, in her examination in chief, has taken the stand that her husband was also earning Rs.20,000/ per month from agricultural pursuits, but, considering the fact that he was a Government employee, it cannot be said that in addition to the salary, he was earning anything.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Nathu Ram, as 50 years. The said findings require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Nathu Ram, as Rs.24,797/ per month and the learned Tribunal has given 30% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Nathu Ram was working in organized sector and his age is 50 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 30% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 30% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.32,236/ (Rs.24,797/ + Rs.7,439/). Thus, his annual income comes to Rs.3,86,832/ (Rs.32,236/x12). The income tax component is liable to be deducted from the said income.

The age of the deceased, at the time of accident was held to be 50 years. As per the income tax slab, applicable for the financial year 201314, income upto Rs.2,50,000/ was exempted. Thus, out of Rs.3,86,832/, the amount of total taxable income comes to Rs.1,36,832/ (Rs.3,86,832/ minus Rs.2,50,000/). The said income falls within the tax slab of 10%. Thus, the tax component comes to Rs.13,683/. The education cess @3% on the said amount of Rs.13,683/ is also liable to be deducted, which comes to Rs.410/. Thus, the total tax component comes to Rs.14,093/. Hence, the total established annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,86,832/ minus Rs.14,093/ = Rs.3,72,739/.

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/4th amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.2,79,555/ (Rs.3,72,739/ minus Rs.93,184/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘13’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.2,79,555/ x 13 = Rs.36,34,215/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.38,96,612/ to Rs. 38,64,215/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 01.08.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 34/2 of 2014, titled as ‘Soma Devi & Others versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.20,45,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being widow, mother, son and daughter of Prem Sagar, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Prem Sagar had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 30 years. According to the claimants, he was a trained mason. His income has been pleaded Rs.30,000/ per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Prem Sagar, as 31 years, on the basis of Pariwar Register Ex.PW 4/C. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Prem Sagar, as Rs.10,000/ per month. The said findings are not based upon the appropriate appreciation of the oral evidence. As such, the monthly income of Shri Prem Sagar is required to be reduced to Rs.8,000/. The learned Tribunal has given 50% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings also require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Prem Sagar was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.11,200/ (Rs.8,000/ + Rs.3,200/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/4^th amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.8,400/ (Rs.11,200/ minus Rs.2,800/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘16’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.8,400/x12 x 16 = Rs.16,12,800/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.20,45,000/ to Rs.18,02,800/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 10.08.2018, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No. 472 of 2014, titled as ‘Vyasa Devi @ Bhaga Devi & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.11,50,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Poonam Devi, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Ms. Poonam Devi had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, her age has been pleaded to be 18 years. According to the claimants, she was pursuing BA from Ghumarwin College and was a trained ladies tailor. Her income has been pleaded Rs.20,000/ per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Poonam Devi, as 18 years, on the basis of document Ex.PW 3/J. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Ms. Poonam Devi, as Rs.10,000/ per month. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court, considering the multifarious activities done by the female, in the household, that too, round the clock, towards her family. However, the learned Tribunal has not given any increase, towards her future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Poonam Devi was working in unorganized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.14,000/ (Rs.10,000/ + Rs.4,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, her monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/ (Rs.14,000/ minus Rs.7,000/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.7,000/x12 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/, on account of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/, on account of loss of love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9%, which is also liable to be interfered with, keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest being awarded by the nationalized banks on fixed deposits and it would be just and appropriate for this Court to reduce the same from 9% to 7.5%.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and, the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.11,50,000/ to Rs.16,22,000/, however, with reduced rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 10.08.2018, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No. 462 of 2014, titled as ‘Kaushalya Devi @ Geeta Devi & Another versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.11,50,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Mandeep Kumar, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Shri Mandeep Kumar had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 17½ years. According to the claimants, he was pursuing Diploma in Electric Trade from ITI. In addition to this, he used to assist private electric contractor, in his contract work and was earning Rs.5,000/. His earning has been pleaded Rs.20,000/, per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Mandeep Kumar, as 17½ years, on the basis of document Ex.PW3/D. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Mandeep Kumar, as Rs.6,000/, per month. The said findings require no interference, being based upon the proper appreciation of oral, as well as, documentary evidence. The deceased was a young man, who was pursuing ITI Diploma in Electric Trade and working as helper with a contractor.

The learned Tribunal has not given increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Mandeep Kumar was working in unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.8,400/ (Rs.6,000/ + Rs.2,400/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.4,200/ (Rs.8,400/ minus Rs.4,200/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.4,200/x12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/, on account of consortium/love and affection. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court, however, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9%, which is also liable to be interfered with, keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest being awarded by the nationalized banks on fixed deposit and it would be just and appropriate for this Court to reduce the same from 9% to 7.5%.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.11,50,000/ to Rs.10,17,200/, with reduced interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.04.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No. 2/2 of 2015, titled as ‘Dhruvender Surya versus Sunil Kumar & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.12,22,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionerclaimant, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionerclaimant, being husband of Anjna Surya, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, has filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

As per the claimant, Ms. Anjna Surya had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, her age has been pleaded to be 35 years of age. According to the claimant, she was lecturer in the Shivam Institute of Vocational Training, Ghumarwin. Her income has been pleaded Rs.8,000/, per month, from all sources.

In order to prove the earnings of the Anjna Surya, during her life time, the petitioner has produced salary certificate Ex.PW3/F, according to which, Ms. Anjna Surya was working with Shivam Institute for Vocational Training, as Senior IT Faculty, on contract basis and she was getting Rs.8,000/ per month. The said certificate has duly been proved by the PW5, Satish Sharma, Chairman of the Institute.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Anjna Surya, as 35 years, on the basis of copy of Pariwar Register Ex.PW3/E. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Ms. Anjna Surya, as Rs.8,000/ per month, however, the said findings are required to be interfered with, by this Court, considering the multifarious activities done by the female, in the household, that too, round the clock, towards her family. As such, the contribution of deceased towards her family can be said to be Rs.8,000/ +Rs.4,000/ (on account of multifarious activities done by the female in the house hold) = Rs.12,000/, per month.

The learned Tribunal has given 50% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court.

Admittedly, Anjna Surya was working in organized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 50% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 50% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.18,000/ (Rs.12,000/ + Rs.6,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3^rd amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, her monthly income comes to Rs.12,000/ (Rs.18,000/ minus Rs.6,000/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘100 (sic.)’, which is not the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. The findings of the learned Tribunal, are required to be interfered with, as, keeping in view the age of the deceased, ‘16’ is the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.12,000/x12x16 = Rs.23,04,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/, on account of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9%, which is also liable to be interfered with, keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest being awarded by the nationalized banks on fixed deposits and it would be just and appropriate for this Court to reduce the same from 9% to 7.5%.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.12,22,000/ to Rs.23,74,000/, however, with reduced interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 02.12.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2015, titled as ‘Roshani Devi versus Meena Kumari & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.8,86,800/, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionerclaimant, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionerclaimant, being mother of Surender Kumar, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, has filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/.

As per the claimant, Shri Surender Kumar had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 28 years. According to the claimant, Shri Surender Kumar, during his life time, was agriculturist, horticulturist and contractor by profession. His income has been pleaded Rs.40,000/ per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Surender Kumar, as 28 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.PW1/B. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Surender Kumar, as Rs.6,000/ per month. The said findings of the learned Tribunal are required to be interfered with. As such, the monthly income of Shri Surender Kumar is required to be enhanced to Rs.8,000/, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Tribunal has rightly given 40% increase, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% towards the future prospects, his monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/ (Rs.8,000/ + Rs.3,200/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.5,600/ (Rs.11,200/ minus Rs.5,600/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘17’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.5,600/x12 x 17 = Rs.11,42,400/.

The learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/ under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9%, which is also liable to be interfered with, keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest being awarded by the nationalized banks on fixed deposits and it would be just and appropriate for this Court to reduce the same from 9% to 7.5%.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.8,86,800/ to Rs.12,12,400/, however, with reduced interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No. 16 of 2014, titled as ‘Deepan Devi & Others versus Sunil Kumar & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.9,98,836/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being widow, sons and daughters of Nand Lal, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

Initially, the parents of the deceased, were also impleaded as petitioners No.2 and 3, but, on account of their death, their names were ordered to be deleted vide order dated 04.06.2025.

As per the claimants, Shri Nand Lal, had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 48 years. According to the claimants, he was agriculturist and mason by profession. His earnings have been pleaded Rs.30,000/, per month, from all sources.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Nand Lal, as 49 years, on the basis of copy of Pariwar Register Mark P1. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Nand Lal, as Rs.5,100/, per month. The said findings are required to be interfered with. The oral evidence of petitioner No.1, Deepan Devi, qua the fact that her husband was mason by profession and earning Rs.6,000/, cannot be ignored. As such, the monthly income of Shri Nand Lal can safely be held to be Rs. 6,000/.

The learned Tribunal has given 25% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require no interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra. Admittedly, Nand Lal was working in unorganized sector and his age is proved to be 49 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 25% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 25% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.7,500/ (Rs.6,000/ + Rs.1,500/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, including his parents, who were expired during the pendency of the lis and their names were ordered to be deleted, 1/5^th amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.6,000/ (Rs.7,500/ minus Rs.1,500/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘13’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.6,000/x12 x 13 = Rs.9,36,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court, however, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Learned Tribunal has given the increase of 10% on the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’, ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral charges’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal require interference, as the accident had taken place in the year 2014 and the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, was delivered in the year 2017.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings require no interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, and, the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.9,98,836/ to Rs.11,66,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No. 10 of 2014, titled as ‘Sunita Devi & Another versus Sunil Kumar alias Sonu & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.11,49,160/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents of Ankit, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

Initially, the grandmother of the deceased, was also impleaded as petitioner No.3, but, on account of her death, her name was ordered to be deleted vide order dated 04.06.2025.

As per the claimants, Shri Ankit, had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 21 years. According to the claimants, he was Barber by profession. His earnings have been pleaded to be Rs.15,000/ per month.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Ankit, as 20 years, on the basis of copy of Pariwar Register Mark P Y. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Ankit, as Rs.5,100/, per month, on the basis of minimum wages, fixed for the unskilled workers. The deceased, being Barber, cannot be said to be unskilled worker. In such situation, his monthly income can be said to be Rs.6,000/.

The learned Tribunal has given 40% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require no interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Ankit was working in unorganized sector and his age is proved to be 20 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.8,400/ (Rs.6,000/ + Rs.2,400/).

Learned Tribunal has fallen into an error in deducting 1/3^rd amount, on account of personal expenses. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.4,200/ (Rs.8,400/ minus Rs.4,200/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.4,200/x12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court, however, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Learned Tribunal has given the increase of 10% on the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’, ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral charges’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal require interference, as the accident had taken place in the year 2014 and the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, was delivered in the year 2017.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings require no interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed, and the awarded amount is reduced from Rs.11,49,160/ to Rs.10,17,200/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No. 13 of 2014, titled as ‘Kaushlya Devi & Others versus Sunil Kumar & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.13,25,160/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being mother, grandfather, widow and brothers of Sanju Kumar, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

Initially, the grandmother of the deceased, were also impleaded as petitioner No.4, but, on account of her death, her name was ordered to be deleted vide order dated 11.06.2025.

As per the claimants, Shri Sanju Kumar, had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 31 years. According to the claimants, he was selfemployed. His earnings have been pleaded Rs.30,000/, per month.

The petitioners, in order to prove the income of Shri Sanju Kumar, as Rs.30,000/, have examined petitioner No.1 Smt. Kaushalya, who has deposed that her son was running a photo studio, at Kandrour and was earning Rs.35,000/ per month. In addition to this, they have also examined PW5, Pradeep Kumar, who has deposed that Sanju Kumar, was earning 2530 thousand rupees per month.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Sanju Kumar, as 31 years, on the basis of copy of Pariwar Register Ex.P3. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Shri Sanju Kumar, as Rs.5,100/, per month, on the basis of minimum wages, paid to the unskilled worker. The said findings are required to be interfered with. The oral evidence of petitioner No.1 demonstrates the fact that her son was photographer, which does not fall within the definition of unskilled worker. As such, his income can be said to be Rs.8,000/, per month.

The learned Tribunal has rightly given 40% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings require no interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Sanju Kumar was working in unorganized sector and his age is proved to be 31 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.11,200/ (Rs.8,000/ + Rs.3,200/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, ¼^th amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.8,400/ (Rs.11,200/ minus Rs.2,800/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘16’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.8,400/x12 x 16 = Rs.16,12,800/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/, on account of consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court, however, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Learned Tribunal has given the increase of 10% on the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’, ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral charges’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal require interference, as the accident had taken place in the year 2014 and the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, was delivered in the year 2017.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings require no interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of. The awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.13,25,160/ to Rs.18,42,800/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No.11 of 2014, titled as ‘Soma Devi & Others versus Sunil Kumar @ Sonu & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.13,65,680/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents, sister and brother of Sapna Kumari, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Ms. Sapna Kumari had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, her age has been pleaded to be 21 years. According to the claimants, she was pursuing MCA from PTU Centre Bilaspur. In the column of ‘monthly income of the person dead’, word ‘Nil’ has been mentioned.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Sapna Kumari, as 21 years, on the basis of documents annexed with the petition. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Ms. Sapna Kumari, as Rs.5,100/ per month, on the basis of the minimum wages, paid to the unskilled worker. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s case supra, has held that the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be taken as Rs.30,000/ per month.

Since, the accident, in question, had taken place in the year 2014, as such, this Court is of the view that in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s judgment supra, ends of justice would be met, if the contribution of Ms. Sapna Kumari, towards her family during her lifetime is taken as Rs.10,000/ per month.

The learned Tribunal has given 40% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Ms. Sapna Kumari was working in unorganized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.14,000/ (Rs.10,000/ + Rs.4,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, her monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/ (Rs.14,000/ minus Rs.7,000/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.7,000/x12 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.15,000/, on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/, towards consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has given the increase of 10% on the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’, ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral charges’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal require interference, as the accident had taken place in the year 2014 and the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, was delivered in the year 2017.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings are not required to be interfered by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.13,65,680/ to Rs.17,02,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No.12 of 2014, titled as ‘Vidya Devi & Others versus Sunil Kumar @ Sonu & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.18,78,528/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents and brother of Meena Kumari, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Ms. Meena Kumari had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, her age has been pleaded to be 25 years of age. According to the claimants, she was Computer Teacher in Shree Education Centre for Development of Advance Computing, House No.1920, Raura Sector Bilaspur. Her monthly income has been pleaded as Rs.25,000/.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Meena Kumari, as 25 years, on the basis of copy of Pariwar Register Ex.P3. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

In order to prove the earnings of Ms. Meena Kumari, petitioners have examined PW5 Manohar Lal, who, on the basis of the record, deposed that Ms. Meena Kumari, was working as Computer Teacher and getting Rs.8,500/ per month. In this regard, he has proved the certificate Ex.PW5/A.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Ms. Sapna Kumari, as Rs.8,500/ per month, on the basis of the certificate Ex. PW5/A. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s case supra, has held that the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be taken as Rs.30,000/ per month.

Since, the accident, in question, had taken place in the year 2014, as such, this Court is of the view that in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s judgment supra, ends of justice would be met, if the contribution of Ms. Meena Kumari, towards her family during her lifetime is taken as Rs.8500/+4000/ (on account of multifarious activities done by a female in the house hold) Rs.12,500/ per month.

The learned Tribunal has given 40% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Ms. Meena Kumari was working in organized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 50% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 50% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.18,750/ (Rs.12,500/ + Rs.6,250/).

Learned Tribunal has also fallen in an error in deducting 1/3^rd amount, on account of her personal expenses, which is in violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, wherein, it has been held that in the case of bachelor, 50% amount, is required to be deducted on account of personal expenses, had he/she been alive. Thus, her monthly income comes to Rs.9,375/ (Rs.18,750/ minus Rs.9,375/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.9,375/x12 x 18 = Rs.20,25,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.15,000/, on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/, towards consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has given the increase of 10% on the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’, ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral charges’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal require interference, as the accident had taken place in the year 2014 and the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, was delivered in the year 2017.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.18,78,528/ to Rs.21,75,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC No.1 of 2015, titled as ‘Phoolan Devi & Others versus Sunil Kumar @ Sonu & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.11,93,160/, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitionersclaimants, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

The petitionersclaimants, being parents and brother of Anupama Kumari, who expired, in the accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/.

As per the claimants, Ms. Anupama Kumari had sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of death, her age has been pleaded to be 21 years of age. According to the claimants, she was Veterinary Pharmacist. Her income has been pleaded to Rs.20,000/ per month.

Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Anupama Kumari, as 23 years, on the basis of matriculation examination certificate Ex.P7. The said findings, being based upon the documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.

The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Ms. Anupama Kumari, as Rs.5,100/ per month, on the basis of the minimum wages, paid to the unskilled worker. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s case supra, has held that the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be taken as Rs.30,000/ per month.

Since, the accident, in question, had taken place in the year 2014, as such, this Court is of the view that in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal’s judgment supra, ends of justice would be met, if the contribution of Ms. Anupama Kumari, towards her family during her lifetime is taken as Rs.10,000/ per month.

The learned Tribunal has given 40% increase, towards future prospects. The said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case supra.

Admittedly, Ms. Anupama Kumari was working in unorganized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.14,000/ (Rs.10,000/ + Rs.4,000/).

Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case supra, and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was bachelor, 50% amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, her monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/ (Rs.14,000/ minus Rs.7,000/).

Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.7,000/x12 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ on account of ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.15,000/, on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/, towards consortium. The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, require no interference by this Court.

Learned Tribunal has given the increase of 10% on the amount awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’, ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral charges’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal require interference, as the accident had taken place in the year 2014 and the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, was delivered in the year 2017.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings are not required to be interfered with, by this Court.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of. The awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.11,93,160/ to Rs.16,62,000/, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 552 of 2016, the present appeal is dismissed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 555 of 2016, the present appeal is allowed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 558 of 2016, the present appeal is allowed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 551 of 2016, the present appeal is dismissed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 567 of 2016, the present appeal is dismissed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 568 of 2016, the present appeal is dismissed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 553 of 2016, the present appeal is dismissed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 538 of 2018, the present appeal is partly allowed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 539 of 2018, the present appeal is dismissed.

In view of the order passed in FAO(MV) No. 550 of 2016, the present appeal is dismissed.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.

Record be sent back.

Keeping in view the voluminous nature of this judgment, the Registry is directed to place the relevant portion of this judgment, from para1 to para 71 in each file and thereafter, to, extract and place only the relevant excerpts, pertaining to the particular appeal, on the file of the corresponding appeal, in all the connected matters.