-1- 231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2999-2001 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 GURMIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus GURMIT SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for Mr. Devinder Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants (wife, son and parents) of deceased Baljinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 07.12.1996 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving car bearing registration No.PB-32-0047 being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 22.08.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross- objection challenging finding of negligence 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. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2999-2001 -2- 3. In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :- Income Rs.3,000/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 18 Loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12 x 18) Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.4,34,000/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has sought enhancement of compensation on the following grounds :- • That the learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the claimants. • That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier, as per age of deceased. • That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled principles of law. • That no addition towards future prospects has been made while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects ought to have been added, as per age of deceased. • That the learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and appropriate compensation under the conventional heads, namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal, parental, and filial consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Appellants/claimants are primarily aggrieved by assessment of income, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and non-grant of future prospects while determining loss of dependency. Appellants/claimants had pleaded that deceased was working as an agriculturist, running a dairy, a CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2999-2001 -3- scooter agency and a tent store, thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, learned Tribunal after considering the oral assertions made by appellants/claimants took income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month considering him to be a skilled worker. 6. On consideration, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of learned Tribunal in determining income of deceased. Admittedly, no proof has been placed on record by appellants/claimants that deceased had any land in his name or was cultivating the same after taking the land on lease. There is no evidence to show that deceased was running a scooter agency or a tent store. No allotment of agency or proof regarding existence of store in the name of deceased has been adduced by the appellants/claimants. Similarly, there is total absence of evidence with regard to existence of a dairy which was being run by deceased. Since, even highly skilled worker in the year 1996 was getting a minimum wage of Rs.1,944/- per month, therefore, income determined by learned Tribunal cannot be held to be on the lower side. Therefore, determination of income of deceased by learned Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- is upheld in absence of any appeal or cross-objection by insurance company. 7. There is no dispute with regards to age of deceased as is made out from the postmortem report (Ex.A3) that deceased was 28 years old at the time of accident. Keeping in view the age of deceased as well as mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 appellants/claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects and multiplier of ‘17’. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2999-2001 -4- Since deceased is survived by four dependents i.e. wife, minor son and parents, therefore, deduction towards personal expenses has to be made to the extent of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. 8. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to compensation @Rs.40,000/- for loss of spousal consortium, appellant-claimant No.2 shall be entitled to compensation @Rs.40,000/- for loss of parental consortium, proforma respondents No.4 & 5 shall be entitled to compensation @Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answers 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. 9. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.3,000/- per month Future Prospects 40% (Rs.3,000 + 1,200) Rs.4,200/- Deduction 1/4th (4,200 – 1,050) Rs.3,150/- Multiplier 17 17 Total loss of dependency Rs.3,150 x 12 x 17 Rs.6,42,600/- 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 No.2 Rs.40,000/- Loss of filial consortium to claimants No.4 & 5 Rs.40,000 X 2 Rs.80,000/- CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2999-2001 -5- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.8,32,600/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,34,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.8,32,600/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.4,34,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.3,98,600/- 10. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation awarded in appeal along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization (except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate). Under conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 11. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 23.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document