Punjab & Haryana High Court confirms that, post–Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses (with 20% increase), and filial consortium (to mother and siblings) is obligatory; deduction for deceased bachelor’s income at 50% is maintained. Reaffirms and applies Supreme Court precedent; binding on subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/5100/2019 of NEELAM GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs NARENDER @ MODI AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010889302019 |
| Date of Registration | 08-08-2019 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation / Insurance Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, for a deceased bachelor, deduction from income must be at 50% unless clear evidence establishes full dependency of mother or siblings. It further held that the amounts under the heads “loss of estate” and “funeral expenses” must be awarded as per the Supreme Court’s direction in Pranay Sethi, with a 20% increase subsequently clarified by later Supreme Court judgments. The mother and siblings are also entitled to filial consortium. The interest rate as decided by the Tribunal was found just and proper. Directions as to payment and apportionment were issued in line with Supreme Court guidance. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The High Court strictly followed and applied the computation guidelines for motor accident compensation set out in Pranay Sethi’s case and its subsequent clarifications, relying on mandatory statutory heads and quantum determined by the Supreme Court of India. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The accident was admitted. The Tribunal had awarded compensation by deducting 50% from the deceased bachelor’s income, and awarded funeral expenses and loss of estate at ₹15,000 each, without consortium. Claimants (mother and major siblings) sought rectification of deduction, higher conventional head compensation, inclusion of consortium, and higher interest. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Tribunals and High Courts in other states and Supreme Court (as application of Supreme Court law) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms mandatory deduction of 50% from deceased bachelor’s income unless strict dependency is proved.
- Applies 20% increase to “conventional heads” (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium) as clarified by the Supreme Court.
- Extends filial consortium compensation to each parent/sibling as per Supreme Court authority.
- Interest rate at 7.5% per annum held just unless higher rate is justified.
- Enhanced compensation payable is to be transferred directly to bank accounts as per Supreme Court’s latest procedural directions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Deduction for Bachelor’s Income: The Court reasoned that, in absence of evidence proving full dependency of the mother and major siblings, deduction from a bachelor’s income should be at 50%, upholding the Tribunal’s approach in line with settled law.
- Conventional Heads: The Court applied the principles set by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and further increased as per Magma General Insurance and N. Jayasree, granting ₹18,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses (₹15,000 + 20%).
- Filial Consortium: Guided by Magma General Insurance and N. Jayasree, the Court awarded ₹48,000 to each surviving mother and sibling towards loss of consortium (₹40,000 + 20%).
- Interest: The interest rate at 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal was found appropriate and not warranting enhancement.
- Procedural Compliance: Directs that payment of enhanced compensation follow latest Supreme Court guidelines for direct credit and reporting to Tribunal (Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Did not dispute the income assessed for the deceased.
- Argued that deduction should be 1/4th (not 50%) considering the number of dependents.
- Claimed conventional heads (loss of estate and funeral expenses) were under-calculated as per Supreme Court law.
- Highlighted that no compensation was awarded for loss of consortium.
- Asserted that the 7.5% interest awarded was on the lower side.
Respondent (Insurance Company)
- Contended compensation awarded was sufficient.
- Opposed any enhancement in favour of claimant-appellants.
Factual Background
The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident the factum of which was undisputed. The deceased was a bachelor, survived by his mother (aged 50) and adult siblings. Compensation was awarded by the Tribunal after deducting 50% of income and allowing only ₹15,000 under loss of estate and funeral expenses, with no sum towards loss of consortium. The claimants appealed for a higher deduction rate, increase under conventional heads, entitlement for consortium, and increased interest.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment interpreted the rules for deduction from income, computation of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the mandatory amounts for “conventional heads” as set by the Supreme Court.
- Applied Supreme Court pronouncements (Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance, N. Jayasree) based on Section 166 MV Act for quantification and heads of compensation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded; decision delivered by single judge.
Procedural Innovations
Orders direct credit of enhanced compensation into claimants’ bank accounts, as per Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal (2025), with timelines and compliance to be reported by the Bank to the concerned Tribunal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reaffirms and applies established Supreme Court principles regarding quantum and heads of compensation, specifically those set out in Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance, and N. Jayasree.