The judgment clarifies that families of deceased bachelors are entitled to “loss of consortium” and revised sums under conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses), in line with recent Supreme Court judgments. The Punjab & Haryana High Court strictly follows and applies binding Supreme Court precedent, sharpening uniformity in the calculation of compensation in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awards. This serves as a binding authority for subordinate courts within its jurisdiction.
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 bench (MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent in Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance, N. Jayasree, Parminder Singh |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicle Compensation Law (MACT) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in motor accident claims involving the death of a bachelor, the deduction towards personal expenses is correctly set at 50%, unless evidence of full dependency by family members exists. It reaffirmed that compensation under conventional heads, including “loss of consortium,” must be awarded as per the enhanced figures and methodology settled by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance, and N. Jayasree. The Court modified the award to grant ₹18,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate, as well as ₹48,000 per claimant towards loss of consortium (mother and siblings), with a 20% increase as per recent guidelines. The interest rate as fixed by the MACT at 7.5% per annum was held to be appropriate. The manner and promptness of disbursal were directed in line with Parminder Singh (2025). |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Scrupulous application of Supreme Court’s binding directions regarding quantum and heads of compensation. Deduction towards personal expenses is 50% for bachelors unless clear dependency is proved, and conventional heads must adhere strictly to increased statutory sums. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The claimants challenged the MACT’s quantum of compensation after the death of a bachelor family member in a motor accident, disputing deductions and amounts awarded under conventional heads and loss of consortium. No challenge was made to the assessed income, addition for future prospects, or the multiplier. The Insurance Company opposed enhancement, asserting that sufficient compensation had already been awarded. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (as an example of consistent application of SC law) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that “loss of consortium” must be granted not only to spouses, but also to the mother and siblings of deceased bachelors, per Supreme Court precedent.
- Mandates the updated quantum under loss of estate and funeral expenses (₹18,000 each, after 20% increase as per guidelines).
- Clarifies that deduction towards personal expenses remains 50% for bachelors unless exclusive dependency by surviving family members is strictly proved.
- Disbursal of enhanced amounts must follow directions in Parminder Singh (2025), including time-bound and direct bank transfer to claimants.
- Major impact on computation: ensures uniformity and disallows lower figures under these heads by Tribunals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first noted there was no dispute on the assessed monthly income, future prospects, or multiplier; these figures were maintained.
- On deduction for personal expenses, the court examined whether the claimants (mother, adult siblings) could justify a lesser deduction than 50%. Finding no evidence of full dependency, the court applied the standard 50% deduction for bachelors.
- The court then considered the challenge to the amounts fixed under the conventional heads. It expressly cited the Supreme Court authorities: Pranay Sethi (for standardized heads and figures + enhancement), Magma General Insurance (for loss of consortium to parents even in case of unmarried deceased), N. Jayasree (for 20% increase on those sums), and Parminder Singh (for bank disbursal protocol).
- Applying these judgments, the court increased funeral expenses and loss of estate to ₹18,000 each, and awarded ₹48,000 each (₹40,000 + 20%) as filial consortium for each claimant.
- The interest rate as set by MACT was found just, thus maintained.
- The court directed the Insurance Company to credit the enhanced amount directly to claimants’ bank accounts, as per the procedure set out in Parminder Singh.
- Accordingly, the award was modified, and the appeal of the claimants was allowed to that extent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimant-Appellants):
- Did not challenge the deceased’s assessed income, future prospects, or multiplier.
- Argued that deduction should have been 1/4th, considering number of dependents.
- Alleged that awards under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium were not as per Supreme Court law.
- Contended that interest rate of 7.5% per annum was too low.
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company):
- Opposed enhancement; submitted that sufficient compensation had already been awarded.
- Requested no further sums be directed.
Factual Background
Claimants (mother and siblings of the deceased bachelor) appealed the MACT’s award after the death of their family member in a motor accident. The core disputes concerned the correct deduction for personal expenses, as well as quantum of compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. No challenge was made in the appeal to the deceased’s determined income, the addition for future prospects, or the multiplier used. The Insurance Company contested any enhancement. The Tribunal had deducted 50% for personal expenses and awarded comparatively lower amounts under the conventional heads, prompting the appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court applied and interpreted binding Supreme Court guidelines concerning Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to “just compensation” in fatal accident claims.
- Interpreted and implemented the mandated “conventional heads” as per Pranay Sethi (2017) (i.e., fixed statutory sums), including the 20% periodic increase.
- Applied the Supreme Court’s binding precedent distinguishing between deduction of personal expenses for bachelors versus married deceased.
- Referred to and enacted the Supreme Court’s procedural mandate (Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, 2025) about direct deposit of compensation into claimants’ bank accounts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Ordered strict compliance with Supreme Court direction that enhanced compensation amounts be directly transferred to claimants’ bank accounts within a specified time frame (six weeks), following proper verification, with the bank to report compliance to the Tribunal.
- Integrated directions on time-bound compliance and documentation requirements for claimants and the Insurance Company, per Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal (2025).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and implements binding Supreme Court precedent (Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance, N. Jayasree, Parminder Singh).