-
by sayum
07 July 2026 3:12 PM
“The assertion that, upon marriage, sons and daughters are no longer dependent on their parents is a fallacy that fails to reflect the practical realities of familial bonds” – In a notable judgment expanding the scope of entitlement under motor accident compensation law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that major, married, and even earning sons of a deceased are legal representatives and entitled to full compensation, including parental consortium, in motor accident death claims.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma, while allowing the appeal in FAO No. 4053 of 2019 (O&M) titled Kuldeep @ Sonu and others v. Jagdeep and another, enhanced the compensation from ₹1,73,100 to ₹14,81,448, applying the binding principles laid down in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance, and Birender.
The Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award dated 08.02.2019, terming the original computation as legally flawed for not applying the correct income bracket, multiplier, future prospects, deductions, and for excluding compensation to major sons of the deceased.
“Even married and earning sons are legal representatives and entitled to compensation” – High Court reiterates binding precedent from Jitender Kumar and Birender
Justice Sharma’s judgment rests on the crucial question of whether major, married sons of a deceased individual are eligible to claim and receive compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, especially when the Tribunal denied them full relief on the ground that they were not financially dependent.
Citing recent and binding authority, the Court held: “The legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation, and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased.”
This exposition finds support in the Supreme Court’s decision in Jitender Kumar v. Sanjay Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 2025, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 28, which settled that the entitlement to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not limited by financial dependency but is based on the status of being a legal representative.
The Court further added:“In our societal framework, parents continue to provide care and support not only to their major/married sons/daughters but also to their grandchildren. The assertion that, upon marriage, sons and daughters are no longer dependent on their parents is a fallacy.”
“Mason is a skilled worker; income cannot be calculated on minimum wages of unskilled labour” – Tribunal’s income assessment set aside
The deceased, Hira Lal, was a 50-year-old mason at the time of death in a road accident on 10.09.2017. The Tribunal had wrongly assessed his income at a level applicable to unskilled workers, ignoring the fact that masonry is a skilled profession.
Justice Sharma corrected this, observing: “The profession of a mason cannot be considered as unskilled… the correct monthly income ought to have been assessed at ₹10,000 based on prevailing minimum wages for skilled labour.”
“Future Prospects Cannot Be Denied – Mandatory Addition of 25% for Self-Employed Aged 50” – High Court applies Pranay Sethi
The Tribunal also failed to add future prospects to the deceased’s income, a legal requirement under the law laid down in Pranay Sethi. The High Court noted:
“In view of the settled law on compensation and considering the age of the deceased (50 years), 25% is to be added as future prospects.”
Accordingly, the total monthly income for the purpose of compensation was fixed at ₹12,500 (₹10,000 + 25%).
“Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses justified when only sons are claimants”
While calculating the dependency loss, the Court applied the correct deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, consistent with the ratio in Sarla Verma, holding that the Tribunal’s failure to apply any deduction was erroneous.
“Correct Multiplier is 13 for Age 50” – Multiplier Method Applied for Dependency
Applying the correct multiplier of 13, the Court computed the annual income at ₹99,996 and the total dependency loss at ₹12,99,948. The Tribunal had failed to apply the multiplier method altogether.
“Each son entitled to ₹48,400 as parental consortium” – Court rejects limitation of relief to dependents only
In addition to the dependency compensation, the High Court granted parental consortium of ₹48,400 to each of the three sons, amounting to ₹1,45,200, in line with Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram and subsequent escalations under Pranay Sethi.
The Court noted: “Major, married or even earning sons/daughters being legal representatives have the right to apply for compensation in cases of accidental death.”
“Standard Compensation Applied for Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses”
The Court reduced the inflated amount granted under loss of estate to ₹18,150 and enhanced funeral expenses to the same amount, bringing both in line with standard escalation under Pranay Sethi.
“Enhanced Compensation of ₹13.08 Lakh with 9% Interest Granted” – Delay of 8 Days Condoned Without Interest for Delay Period
The High Court allowed the appeal, condoning a delay of 8 days in filing under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and excluded the interest for that short period.
Interest at 9% per annum was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company on the enhanced amount of ₹13,08,348, from the date of filing the original claim petition till realisation.
The Court directed: “The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with interest before the Tribunal within two months… The Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants upon furnishing of bank details.”
Date of Decision: 10 December 2025
