Surjit Kaur and Others V. Gian Singh and Others

FAO/4262/2003

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the family of the deceased, Dr. Gurcharan Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident due to the negligent driving of an offending vehicle. The appellants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga, and sought a higher compensation amount. The main legal issues revolved around the calculation of the deceased's income, the application of the correct multiplier for loss of dependency, and the appropriate deduction for personal expenses. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in these calculations and adjusted the compensation accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832540 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1998
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJIV BABBI; GOPAL MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N S DHANDIWAL
• Keywords: Compensation; Dependency; Future prospects; Motor Accident; Multiplier; Personal expenses
• Section: 2(2); 2(3); 2.1

Judgement Text

" -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 FAO-4262-2003 (O&M) Date of decision:22.01.2026 Surjit Kaur and Others ...Appellants Versus Gian Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. N.S. Dhandiwal, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Babbi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocatefor respondent No.7. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants being dissatisfied with award of compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- by impugned award dated 16.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga, (herein- after referred to as ‘Tribunal’) on account of untimely death of deceased Dr. Gurcharan Singh, in motor vehicular accident dated 25.01.1998 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing number PB-08-8099 by respondent No.1. 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants-claim- ants is as regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross- objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the de- tailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity. Printed from counselvise.com SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.26 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4262-2003 -2- 3. Learned Tribunal had awarded following compensation: - Monthly Income 6483/- Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 2,483/- Dependency per month Rs. 4,000/- Multiplier 8 Loss of dependency Rs. 3,84,000/- (Rs. 4000/- x 12 x 8) Amount granted Rs. 3,84,000/- 4. Claim petition has been preferred by five appellants-claimants i.e. mother, wife and three children of the deceased. It was the case of appel- lants-claimants that deceased Dr. Gurcharan Singh was aged 49 years working in Primary Health Center, Dhudike on a monthly salary of Rs.7483/-. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has argued that learned Tribunal has erred in taking carry home salary as income of deceased, whereas as per salary certif- icate the gross salary of deceased was Rs.7483/-. Learned counsel for appel- lants-claimants further argued that since deceased was 49 years, therefore learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of ‘13’ instead of ‘8’ and even personal expenses have wrongly been deducted to the extent of 1/3rd, whereas in view of five dependents, same ought to have been 1/4th. 5. Learned counsels for respondent Nos.3 and 7-Insurance Compa- nies fairly admits that there is no dispute as regards to age of deceased and number of dependents. Therefore, in view of judgment titled Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (2) SCC (Civil) 770, multiplier of ‘13’ would be applicable as deceased was 49 years Printed from counselvise.com SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.26 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4262-2003 -3- and deduction to the extent of 1/4th needs to be applied towards personal ex- penses as five persons were dependent upon deceased. No future prospects have been taken while determining loss of dependency. In view of judgment titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680, appellants-claimants are entitled to future prospects to the extent of 30% for determination of loss of dependency as deceased was in permanent government job and was aged 49 years. 6. Admittedly, the income of deceased was taxable in year 1998 when deceased had died. As per Income Tax Act, 1998 no tax was liable to be deducted on income up to Rs.50,000. The rate of tax was 10% for income from Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- and thereafter 20% for income up to Rs.1,50,000. Admittedly, annual income of deceased was Rs.89,796/-, there- fore taxable income was Rs.39,093/- and tax, which deceased was liable to pay, was Rs.6800/-. Therefore, while calculating income of deceased, the learned tribunal ought to have only deducted income tax and could not have taken the carry home salary as it includes contribution towards GPF etc., which cannot be excluded out of income of deceased. Accordingly, after de- ducting Rs.6800/-, annual income of deceased is taken as Rs.82,996/- for de- termining loss of dependency. 7. After applying 30% future prospects, taking annual income of deceased to be Rs.82,996/- and by applying multiplier of ‘13’ and 1/4th deduc- tion towards personal expenses, loss of dependency needs to be determined. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.7,500/- towards funeral ex- penses, Rs.7,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- each on account of filial, spousal and parental consortium. Printed from counselvise.com SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.26 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4262-2003 -4- 8. In view of above, appellants-claimants shall be entitled to follow- ing compensation: Income of deceased Rs.82,996/- per annum Rs.82,996/- per annum Future Prospects 30% of 82,996 (82,996+24,899) Rs.1,07,895/- Deduction 1/4th (1,07,895-26,973) Rs.80,922/- Multiplier 13 13 Total loss of dependency 80,922X13 Rs.10,51,986/- Loss of Estate Rs.7,500/- Funeral Expenses Rs.7,500/- Filial consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.15,000/- Spousal consortium to claimant No.2 Rs.15,000/- Parental consortium to claimant Nos.3, 4 and 5 Rs.15,000X3 Rs.45,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,84,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.11,41,986/- Enhanced compensation Rs.11,41,986/-(awarded by in appeal) – Rs.3,84,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.7,57,986/- 9. Appellants-claimants i.e. mother, wife and children of deceased, shall also be entitled to interest over enhanced amount to the extent of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The apportionment Printed from counselvise.com SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.26 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4262-2003 -5- and liability of respondents to pay compensation shall be as per award. The enhanced amount be paid to bank accounts of appellants-claimants without insisting to deposit the same in FDR. 10. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 22.01.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Printed from counselvise.com SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.26 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "