IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) Decided on : 23.07.2026 PUSHPA DEVI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT VERSUS JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.13710-CII of 2026 For the reasons stated in present application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking up the appeal on some actual date of hearing, same is allowed. Appeal is taken to Board today itself. CM NO.13709-CII OF 2026 For the reasons stated in the application for impleadment of legal representatives of appellant No.1, same is allowed subject to just exceptions. Legal representatives mentioned in paragraph No.2 of application are impleaded as such. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. MAIN CASE (O&M) 2. Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants (wife, son and daughter) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -2- award dated 11.08.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellant-claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- on account of death of Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 25.10.1997 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving truck bearing registration No.AP-28T-6362 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) 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 challenging finding of negligence has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 4. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation to appellant-claimants: Income Rs.60,000/- per annum Multiplier 8 Loss of dependency Rs.4,80,000/- Total compensation Rs.4,80,000/- 5. Appellants-claimants have sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that:- ● 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, despite the fact that the deceased was 50 years of age at the time of the accident. ● That the deduction towards the personal and living SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -3- 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 the deceased was 50 years of age at the time of the accident. ● 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. 6. It was the case of appellants-claimants that deceased was employed as Junior Engineer with HSEB and was earning Rs.10,000/-. To prove income, reliance was placed on salary certificate Ex.PY which showed that deceased was earning Rs.10,464/-. Learned Tribunal, however, has taken salary as Rs.8,264/- after taking into consideration Ex.PY. Appellants- claimants have claimed that learned Tribunal had unnecessarily reduced the salary being received by deceased and duly proved on record because some amount was being deducted from the salary of deceased on account of some advance/savings towards insurance and provident fund. It is asserted that income/salary as depicted in Ex.PY i.e. Rs.10,464/- ought to have been taken by learned Tribunal instead of Rs.8,264/- per month. 7. On consideration, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of appellants-claimants. Appellants-claimants had duly proved that deceased was working as Junior Engineer with Haryana State Electricity Board which was later on re-named as HVPNL. The assertions as made by appellants- claimants were duly endorsed by Somnath Arora-RW2, Assistant from SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -4- Office of HVPNL, who was examined by respondents. Learned Tribunal has taken loss of dependency to be Rs.60,000/- per years instead of taking salary proved on record and applying appropriate multiplier and future prospects after making deduction toward personal expenses. Fact that son of deceased was appointed on compassionate ground and family of deceased was getting pension after death of deceased are not the factors which would influence right of appellants-claimants to seek loss of dependency. The right to receive pension was service benefit of deceased and therefore cannot be counted or set-off towards the income which deceased, otherwise have earned if he had been alive. Therefore, the salary as depicted in salary certificate (Ex.PY) has to be accepted as income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has duly noticed that no income tax was deducted and deduction of Rs.2200/- was being made on account of saving/advance. Learned Tribunal had taken into consideration only the carry home salary amount i.e. Rs.8,264/- as income of deceased for determining loss of dependency, which cannot be accepted. Any amount except for income tax, which is being deducted from salary of an employee, would continue to remain as his income in his hands. If a person had taken loan and for said purpose, some amount is deducted from his salary or some statutory amount towards provident fund etc. is being deducted, the same is his savings and has to be considered as part of his income. Income which could qualify as taxable income, therefore, should have been taken even though lower tax was paid due to exemption under the Income Tax law and would constitute income of the deceased. Accordingly in present case, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,464/- per month. 8. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -5- submitted that in the financial year 1997-1998, when the deceased had died, the exemption limit was Rs.40,000/- and any income over and above Rs.40,000/- upto Rs.60,000/- was taxable @ 10%. Tax for income of Rs.60,001 to Rs.1,50,000/- was 20% and on income above Rs.1,50,000 was 30%. 9. In present case, annual income of deceased was Rs.1,25,568/-, therefore, total tax payable was Rs.15,114/- after deducting total amount of income tax, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,10,454/-. 10. Age of deceased is not in doubt. It is admitted fact that deceased was 50 years old at the time of his death. Deceased was in regular job at the time of his death, therefore for purposes of determining loss of dependency, future prospects to the extent of 30% needs to be added in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680. 11. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submits that since deceased was 50 years old, therefore, he shall be entitlted to future prospects to the extent of 15% as is applicable to persons in the age group of 50 to 60. 12. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that legal representatives of deceased aged upto 40 years shall be entitled to 40/50% future prospects, legal representatives of deceased in the age group of 40-50 years shall be entitled to 25/30% and legal representatives of deceased in the age group of 50-60 shall be entitled to 10-15% future prospects. From the slab mentioned in the National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -6- (supra), it is clearly made out that whenever there is a definite evidence that deceased was above 40 years or above 50 years he would fall in the subsequent category and not in the previous category of upto 40 years or upto to 50 years. In present case, there is no evidence available on record even though respondent-Insurance Company had summoned the official record but has not proved age of deceased to be more than 50 years. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and benefit of any doubt has to be given to the appellants-claimants. Therefore, in present case, the deceased shall fall in the age group of 40-50 years thereby entitlted to future prospects @ 30%. Keeping in view of age of deceased to be 50 years, multiplier of ‘13’ shall be applicable as mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121. Similarly deduction towards personal expenses has to be applied on the basis of number of dependents which are three in present case i.e. wife, son and daughter. Accordingly, deduction to the extent of 1/3rd shall be applicable. The loss of dependency, therefore, has to be determined by taking monthly income of deceased to be Rs.10,464/- by applying future prospects to the extent of 30%, multiplier of ‘13’ and by making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. 13. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants- claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appelalnts-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. It SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -7- 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-claimants, appellant-claimants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 14. Reworked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as under:- Income Rs.10,464/- per month Rs.10,464/- per month Future Prospects 30% (10,464+3139.2) Rs.13,603/- Deduction 1/3rd (13603-4534) Rs.9,068/- Multiplier 13 13 Total loss of dependency 9,068X13X12 Rs.14,14,701/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of spousal consortium to appellant-claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to appellant-claimants No.2 and 3 40,000 X 2 Rs.80,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Rs.4,80,000/- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3489-2001 (O&M) -8- Tribunal Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.15,64,701/- Enhanced compensation Rs.15,64,701/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.4,80,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.10,84,701/- 15. Appellant-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation (except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 16. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document