-1- 245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4420-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 VIRMATI DEVI AND OTHERS ...Appellants Versus JAGVIR SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. J.C. Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanya Bhurji, Advocate Ms. Rishita Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Radhika, Advocate for the respondent No.3. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being the wife, children (four) and father of deceased Vijay Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 31.05.1998 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving canter bearing registration No.PB-10-S-1047, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 12.03.2000, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (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 has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.28 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4420-2001 -2- detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 3. In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :- Income Rs.30,000/- per annum Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 12 Loss of dependency Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 12) Total compensation awarded Rs.2,40,000/- 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. In the present case appellants-claimants have sought CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.28 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4420-2001 -3- enhancement of compensation on the ground that learned Tribunal had failed to take into consideration pleaded income and vocation of deceased to calculate loss of dependency. Appellants-claimants have placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Chandra @Chanda @Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., 2022 (1) SCC (Cri) 204 to argue that even in absence of documentary evidence, the Court ought to have considered statement of appellants-claimants and accepted the same to determine income of deceased. 6. In the present case, appellants-claimants have claimed that deceased was the owner of tractor and he used to transport building material and other material, thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, no documentary, cogent or reliable evidence was placed on record to show the pleaded income and vocation of the deceased. Except for self-serving oral assertions made by appellant No.1- wife of deceased no material was placed on record. The principle stated by learned counsel for appellants-claimants is not in doubt. It is correct that Courts will not resort to fixing income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages, merely because no documentary evidence or salary certificate has been placed on record. The determination of income of a deceased person is always dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case and evidence led before the Tribunal. There is no straitjacket formula to accept or reject the income pleaded/proved on record. It is based upon appreciation of evidence which has been produced before learned Tribunal. 7. In the present case it was a specific stand of appellants- CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.28 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4420-2001 -4- claimants that the deceased was owner of tractor and was using the same to transport building material, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the best evidence available to support the evidence led by appellants-claimants was registration certificate of tractor to show ownership of tractor to corroborate the assertions made by appellant No.1 while appearing as AW-2. Mere oral assertions, without there being any corroboration which appears to be exaggerated in absence of any other material cannot be accepted to determine income of deceased. 8. Therefore, in the present case learned Tribunal has rightly considered deceased to be a labourer earning minimum wages. Minimum wages prevalent in the year 1998 when accident had taken place were Rs.1,641/-. Accordingly, income of deceased taken by learned Tribunal is higher than minimum wages payable to unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e Rs.30,000/- per annum. Therefore, income of deceased is taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. (Rs.2,500/- per month). 9. In the present case deceased was stated to be 35 years old, however, PMR (Ex.A2) shows that deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident. It is worth noticing that documents relating to age of deceased were within the knowledge of appellants-claimants and it was their duty to produce either document relating to date of birth i.e. birth certificate, voter card, aadhaar card, ration card or any other such document to counter postmortem report wherein age of deceased was noted to be 40 years. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the approach of learned Tribunal in taking age of deceased to be 40 years instead of 35 years as was claimed by appellants-claimants. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.28 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4420-2001 -5- 10. Keeping in view age of deceased to be 40 years at the time of accident addition of 40% towards future prospects needs to be taken into consideration to determine loss of dependency in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680. Similarly, multiplier of ‘15’ would be applicable in view of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. Since deceased is survived by six dependents i.e. wife, four children and father, therefore, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses needs to be made for calculating loss of dependency. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 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. 11. Accordingly, reworked compensation payable to appellants- claimants is as under :- Income Rs.30,000/-per annum (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.30,000/- per annum Future Prospects 40% (30000+12000) Rs.42,000/- Deduction 1/4th (42,000 -10500) Rs.31,500/- Multiplier 15 15 Total loss of dependency Rs.31,500 x 15 Rs.4,72,500/- CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.28 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4420-2001 -6- 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 claimants No.2 to 5 Rs.40,000 x 4 Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of filial consortium to claimant No.6 Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.7,42,500/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,40,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.7,42,500/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,40,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.5,02,500/- 12. 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. 13. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.28 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document