FAO-379-20 IN THE HIG 115 Manpreet Ka Balwant Cha CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-1168-C 1. Limitation A delay of 62 2. 3. supported by filing the pre FAO-379-20 1. enhancemen learned Mot learned Trib MACP No. 1988. The minor daugh 2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA reet Kaur and others Versus nt Chand and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate for I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 read with section 15 62 days in filing the accompanying Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow present appeal is condoned. 2025 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation amount of d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, d Tribunal’) vide impugned Award No. 210-2023 filed under Section 16 The 04 claimants are the: i) 30-yea daughter; iii) 55-year-old mother; D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-379-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.03.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ate for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the 151 CPC is for condonation of nying appeal. ned in the application which is is allowed and delay of 62 days in ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹60,21,944/- awarded by the ibunal, SAS Nagar (for short-‘the ward dated 11.07.2024, passed in tion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, year-old widow; ii) 02-year-old and iv) 59-year-old father of the n of h is s in king the ‘the d in Act, old r of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-379-20 deceased-Gu accident. 2. basis of pl deceased-Gu a motor vehi negligent dr (hereinafter owned by respondent compensatio date of filin were held jo 3. sought enhan towards TD the compen deceased had Assessment Accordingly under TDS submits that assessment y filed and tax made under 2025 (O&M) -2- Gurwinder Singh, who was aged a Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Gurwinder Singh had died due to or vehicular accident that took place o ent driving of Truck bearing regis nafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by resp by respondent No. 2-Sterling R dent No. 3-Insurance Company nsation as above along with interest f filing the claim petition till actual jointly and severally liable to pay The only ground on which t t enhancement of compensation is tha s TDS has been wrongly deducted by mpensation payable to the appellan ed had already paid the income tax to sment Year 2019-20; and ₹2610/- for dingly, there was no question of furt TDS as the tax had already been as ts that TDS is deductible for future ment years which have already gone b nd tax assessed and paid. Accordingly under the Head TDS. aged around 33 years at the time of re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that ue to the injuries suffered by him in lace on 21.07.2023 due to rash and registration No. PB-07-CA-2547 y respondent No.1-Balwant Chand; ling Roadways; and insured by mpany. Ld. Tribunal awarded terest @ 7.5% per annum from the actual realization. All respondents o pay the compensation. hich the appellant-claimants have is that vide impugned Award 10% ted by the Tribunal while assessing ppellants. It is submitted that the tax to the tune of ₹12,826/- for the for the assessment year 2021-22. of further deduction of any amount een assessed and paid. Ld. counsel uture assessment years and not for gone by and their returns have been rdingly, no deduction deserves to be e of the that in and ; by rded the ents ave 10% sing the r the 22. ount nsel t for een o be RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-379-20 4. which is a n by the learne that deductio made as fa dependent u increased in accordingly be enhanced 5. have heard l merit in the claimants. 6. the appellan accident dec ₹70,000/- appellants h assessment y Appellants a PW-4/C. 7. examined PW Sirhind, who of the decea Ex. PW-3/A 2025 (O&M) -3- Further, it is submitted that the is a new booming business and, ther learned Tribunal @ 40% only, is on t eduction of 1/3rd towards personal exp as father of the deceased also de dent upon the deceased. Even multipl sed in the peculiar facts and circu ingly prayed that the present appeal b anced. No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the submissions made by learne Perusal of the record shows th pellant-claimants before the learned nt deceased was running a Gym f per month. To prove the said i ants had produced Income Tax Retu ment year 2019-2020 as Ex. PW-3/A; lants also produced statement of acc To prove the aforesaid doc ned PW-3 Sachin Kumar, Tax Assista , who had brought the record pertaini deceased and had proved that for t 3/A, the total income of the deceas at the deceased was running a Gym d, therefore, future prospects added is on the lower side. It is contended nal expenses has also been wrongly lso deserves to be considered as ultiplier of 16 also deserves to be circumstances of the case. It is ppeal be allowed and compensation ised on behalf of the appellants. I sed the case file in detail. I find no ned counsel for the appellant- ws that it was the pleaded case of learned Tribunal that prior to the ym from which he was earning said income of the deceased, the x Returns of the deceased for the 3/A; and 2021-2022 Ex. PW-3/D. of account of the deceased as Ex. d documents, the claimants had ssistant, Income Tax Office, Ward ertaining to the Income Tax Returns t for the assessment year 2019-20 deceased was ₹4,21,230/- of which ym ed ded ngly as o be It is tion I d no e of the ning the the D. Ex. had ard urns hich RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-379-20 he had paid the total ann had paid ₹26 income of th same. 8. produced by deceased cla Keeping in v deceased fel towards tax. to deduct the 9. time of acci Tax Returns deceased wa deceased wa had correctl addition of the appellan been made Court in Na others, (2017 10. made a dedu 2025 (O&M) -4- paid ₹12,826 as tax. For the assessm al annual income of the deceased was 2610/- as tax. Accordingly, the le e of the deceased as ₹4,32,510/- per It is also to be noted that in ced by the claimants, various other tran ed claimed as income as noted in par ng in view the above facts, the learne ed fell under the slab wherein dedu s tax. Accordingly, the learned Tribu uct the income tax payable to the exten Age of the deceased was dete f accident on the basis of his PAN C eturns Ex. PW-3/B and Ex. PW-3/D was mentioned as 27.08.1990. As ed was 32 years, 11 months and 26 da orrectly applied the multiplier of 16 n of 40% towards future prospects. A pellant to the contrary are without me made in conformity the law laid dow National Insurance Company Li (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, although there were 04 deduction of 1/3rd towards personal e sessment year 2021-22 Ex. PW-3/B d was ₹4,32,510/- and the deceased , the learned Tribunal had taken the per annum. I find no error in the that in the Statement of Accounts er transactions are shown which the in para 26 of the impugned Award. learned Tribunal had held that the deduction of 20% is to be made Tribunal had deemed it appropriate e extent of 10%. s determined to be 32 years at the PAN Card Ex.PW-1/H and Income 3/D, wherein date of birth of the . As such, on the date of accident, 26 days. Accordingly, the Tribunal 16; and had correctly made an ects. Arguments raised on behalf of out merit as the said additions have id down by the Hon’ble Supreme y Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ere 04 claimants, the Tribunal had sonal expenses. I find no error in the the the unts the t the ade riate the ome the ent, unal e an lf of eme nd had the RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-379-20 said deductio be said to be 11. awarded an a Consortium; funeral expe ₹60,21,944 manner: - Name of dece Date of accid Date of death Age at the tim Occupation Annual Incom Future increa Versus Prana PLR 693(SC) Total income After deducti tax, annual in Deduction 1/3 Remaining am Multiplier Total annual Loss of estate Funeral expen Loss of conso Total Com with interes annum 12. compensatio shown to th Award. No d cautioned by be treated as 2025 (O&M) -5- eduction made by the learned Tribunal d to be dependent upon the deceased. Under the Conventional Head n amount of ₹44,000/- each to all rtium; ₹16,500/- towards Loss of E l expenses. Thus, the learned Tribuna ,944/- as compensation to the appe f deceased Gurwinder Sin accident 21.7.2023 death 21.7.2023 the time of accident 32 years Business of G Force fitness C l Income ₹4,32,510/- increase @ 40% (NIC Pranay Sethi, 2017(4) 3(SC) ₹1,73,004/- come per annum ₹4,32,510+1,7 eduction of 10% income nual income comes to ₹5,44,963/- ion 1/3rd ₹1,81,654/- ing amount per annum ₹5,44,963 min 16 nnual income ₹3,63,309x16 estate ₹16,500/- l expenses ₹16,500/- consortium ₹44,000x4=1, Compensation along nterest @ 7.5% per ₹60,21,944/- From the above facts, it is cle nsation has been awarded to the ap to this Court that would merit inter . No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a ned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, th ated as a windfall or a source of profit ribunal, as 59-year-old father cannot ased. Heads, the learned Tribunal had to all the claimants towards Loss of of Estate; and ₹16,500/- towards ribunal had granted total amount of appellant-claimants in following der Singh s of Gym in the name and style of tness Club, Khamanon. 10+1,73,004=₹6,05,514/- 63 minus ₹1,81,654/= ₹3,63,309/ 09x16 = ₹58,12,944/- x4=1,76,000/- - is clear that a very just and fair the appellants. Nothing has been it interference with the impugned ct is a beneficial legislation yet, as urt, the same cannot be allowed to profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in nnot had s of ards t of ing e of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-379-20 State of Ha Doc ID # 6 Shetty’, (200 should be source of pr case of Gen 1994 Volum misplaced sy factor for de 13. that merits dismissed. 14. 23.03.2026 rishu 2025 (O&M) -6- Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir K # 64043 and Divisional Controller (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that th be just and reasonable, it should n of profit but at the same time it shou General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Su olume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Su ced sympathy, generosity and benevo for determining the compensation. In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ir Kaur & Others, Law Finder oller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva that the amount of compensation ould neither be a bonanza nor a it should not be a pittance. In the . Susamma Thomas & Others, ble Supreme Court has held that enevolence cannot be the guiding above, I find no case is made out impugned Award. The appeal is any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.