IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 270 SARITA AND ORS DHARMENDER CORAM: Present: PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) who are wife, children (three) and father of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 29.01.2001, on account of rash and negligent driving by respond 1CD/2235, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.5,50,000/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 2. claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal and cross objections have been preferred by any of the respondents, the detailed facts as regards to manner o IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 SARITA AND ORS VERSUS DHARMENDER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Sakeel Ahmed, Advocate and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the a who are wife, children (three) and father of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 29.01.2001, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent driver while driving jeep bearing registration No. DL 1CD/2235, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-awarded vide impugned award dated 17.09.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal and cross objections have been preferred by any of the respondents, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH FAO-3555-2003 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ...RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Sakeel Ahmed, Advocate and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate Insurance Company. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife, children (three) and father of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 29.01.2001, on account of rash and negligent ent driver while driving jeep bearing registration No. DL 1CD/2235, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of awarded vide impugned award dated 17.09.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal and cross objections have been preferred by any of the respondents, the detailed facts f accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of -1- ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENT claimants who are wife, children (three) and father of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 29.01.2001, on account of rash and negligent ent driver while driving jeep bearing registration No. DL- 1CD/2235, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of awarded vide impugned award dated 17.09.2002, passed by the as Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal and cross- objections have been preferred by any of the respondents, the detailed facts f accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of LALITA 2026.07.24 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3555-2003 -2- brevity. 3. In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation: Income Rs.2,400/- Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 16 Loss of dependency Rs.3,07,200/- (19,200 x16) Funeral Expenses Rs.2,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs.5,000/- Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Total compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.3,16,700/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has sought enhancement in compensation on the following grounds: dfasdfsa  Learned Tribunal has erred in not taking income of deceased as was pleaded by appellants-claimants.  That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled principles of law.  Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent of 40 % of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident.  Appropriate amount of compensation needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. LALITA 2026.07.24 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3555-2003 -3- 5. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants has raised the dispute regarding income of deceased taken by learned Tribunal to determine loss of dependency. It is the case of appellants-claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- by running a tent house and was also working as a welder. It was claimed that the deceased had an ITI Diploma in Welding which was placed on record as Ex.P4. 6. In the present case, except oral assertions andtestimony of Davinder Yadav PW-3, no cogent or reliable evidence has been provided to prove income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/- as pleaded by appellants- claimants. No documentary evidence in the form of bank account or business transaction account or registration of shop/business expertise has been placed on record. 7. Keeping in view Ex.P-4 i.e. Certificate of ITI Diploma in Welding, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the deceased was a young man of 32 years and was well qualified vocationally and therefore the Ex.P4 has to be taken into consideration while determining his income. In view of vocational training it is held that deceased was a highluy skilled worker. Therefore, the income of deceased is taken to be Rs. 2610/- i.e. minimum wages prevalent for highly skilled workers in State of Haryana at the time of accident. 8. The age of deceased was stated to be 32 years as per the post mortem report Ex. P3 and Diploma certificate Ex. P4. Learned Tribunal hadapplied multiplier of 16 and deduction of 1/3rd was made. As far as LALITA 2026.07.24 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3555-2003 -4- multiplier is concerned, the same is in accordance with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. However, in view of the fact that the deceased had 5 dependents i.e. wife, three children and father, accordingly in the present case deduction towards personal expenses has to be made to the extent of 1/4. 9. Keeping in view age of deceased as 32 years at the time of accident, future prospects to the extent of 40% would be applicable in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680. 10. Accordingly, loss of dependency is to be calculated by taking income of deceased to be Rs.2610/-, by adding 40% towards future prospect by applying multiplier of 16, and after making deduction of 1/4. 11. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2, 3 and 4 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each and appellant-claimant No.5 shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Appellants- 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 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 LALITA 2026.07.24 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3555-2003 -5- appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 12. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs.2,610/- permonth Rs.2,610/- per month Future Prospects 40% (2610+1044) Rs.3,654/- Deduction 1/4th (3654-913) Rs.2,741/- Multiplier 16 16 Total loss of dependency Rs.2,741x12x16 Rs.5,26,272/- 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, 3 & 4 Rs.40,000 x 3 Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of filial consortium to claimant No.5 Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.7,56,272/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,16,700/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.7,56,272/- (awarded in appeal) Rs.3,16,700/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.4,39,572/- 13. 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 LALITA 2026.07.24 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3555-2003 -6- heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate). Under conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 14. Appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE Lalita-II Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No LALITA 2026.07.24 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document