-1- 237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2902-2001 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 SURJIT KAUR & ORS. ....Appellants Versus HARPAL SINGH & ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate & Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate Ms. Swati Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Agam Jund, Advocate & Mr. Parmod Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 4. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) As per service report, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been served. However, perusal of award shows that no relief was awarded by learned Tribunal against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has stated that no relief is being sought against respondent Nos.2 and 3 as driver of offending vehicle was respondent No.1 and vehicle was owned by respondent No.4. He also submits that vehicle was not insured. Therefore, the liability was fixed by learned Tribunal rightly upon respondent Nos.1 and 4. In view of assertions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, service upon respondent Nos.2 & 3 is dispensed with. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2902-2001 -2- 2. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife, and son of Karnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 06.10.1994, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent driver while driving tractor-trolley bearing registration No. PB-V-7521, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 10.01.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 3. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross- objection has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 4. In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation: Income Rs.2,700/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 5 Loss of dependency Rs.1,08,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.1,08,000/- 5. It is the claim of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.3,200/- per month while working as a saw mill operator. To prove income and vocation of deceased, Deedar Singh son of deceased appeared as PW-1 and asserted that the deceased was a labourer and did job of cutting the trees. Except for oral assertions, no material was placed on record to show that deceased was a saw mill operator. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has rightly taken deceased to be a labourer/casual worker and has RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2902-2001 -3- assessed his income as Rs.2,700/- per month. 6. However, I find that learned Tribunal while determining loss of dependency has not added future prospects which ought to have been added in view of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017(16) SCC 680. 7. Appellants-claimants are entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects of income towards future prospects keeping in view age of deceased who was 50 years at the time of accident. Similarly, multiplier of ‘13’ would be applicable in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi transport corporation, 2009(6) SCC 121. Deceased is survived by seven dependents wife and six children, accordingly, deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses needs to be made. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, claimants-children of deceased shall be entitled to loss of parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. Claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 8. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs.2,700/- per month Rs.1,800/- per month Future Prospects 25% (2700+675) Rs.3,375/- Deduction 1/5th (3375-675) Rs.2,700/- RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2902-2001 -4- Multiplier 13 13 Total loss of dependency Rs.2,700 x 12 x 13 Rs.4,21,200/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos. 2 (5,6,7,8 & 9) Rs.40,000 x 6 Rs.2,40,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.7,31,200/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,08,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.7,31,200/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.1,08,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.6,23,200/- 9. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount (except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate). Under these heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 10. Appeal is accordingly allowed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document