IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 202 FAO-4196-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026 Smt. Bimla Devi and Others …..Appellants Vs. Ra5an Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Deep Simran Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-15368-CII-2002: This is an applica!on under Sec!on 151 CPC to condone the delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons men!oned in the applica!on duly supported by affidavit of Sh. Mohan Lal, Clerk of Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applica!on stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: This is an appeal preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa!on awarded in a motor vehicular accident claim arising out of an accident dated 03.12.2000, in which Ramphal son of Chand Ram, and Ramphal son of Dhari Ram lost their lives on account of rash and negligent driving of tralla bearing registra!on No. HR-26A-9981. Separate claim pe!!ons were ins!tuted by the legal representa!ves of the two deceased persons and were decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4196-2002 (O&M) Tribunal, Rohtak, vide common award dated 14.12.2001. 2. The present appeal has been filed by Smt. Bimla and others, being the widow and children of deceased Ramphal son of Dhari Ram, seeking enhancement of the compensa!on awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was employed as a Gardener in the office of the Improvement Trust, Bhiwani and was drawing salary of ₹4,559/- per month. It is argued that since there were six dependents, deduc!on towards personal and living expenses ought not to have exceeded one-fourth of the income. It is further submi<ed that the deceased was 40 years of age and, therefore, the appropriate mul!plier should have been applied in accordance with se<led principles. It is also argued that the Tribunal failed to grant just compensa!on under the conven!onal heads. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer does not seriously dispute that compensa!on is required to be re-assessed in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 2018(18) SCC 130. However, it is contended that as the deceased had crossed the age of 40 years, the mul!plier applicable would be 14 and not 15. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the par!es and examined the record. 6. The evidence on record establishes that the deceased was in regular employment as a Gardener and was earning ₹4,559/- per month, i.e. ₹54,708/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged 40 years and one month at the !me of death, he had crossed the age bracket of 40 years. Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4196-2002 (O&M) Accordingly, in terms of the ra!o laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addi!on of 30% towards future prospects is liable to be made, being a case of permanent employment. Thus, the annual income, aBer adding future prospects, comes to ₹71,120/- (rounded off). 7. There being six dependents, deduc!on of one-fourth towards personal and living expenses is jus!fied in terms of Sarla Verma (supra). Consequently, the annual contribu!on to the family (loss of dependency) comes to ₹53,340/-. 8. For a deceased aged above 40 years, the proper mul!plier applicable is 14. Applying the said mul!plier, the compensa!on under the head of loss of dependency works out to be ₹53,340 × 14 = ₹7,46,760/- 9. As regards compensa!on under conven!onal heads, it is to be no!ced that the accident occurred in the year 2000. Having regard to the period of accident and to ensure reasonable and just compensa!on, consor!um is assessed at ₹20,000/- each in favour of the widow and four children, i.e. ₹1,00,000/- in all. Since the mother of the deceased has not preferred any appeal, no enhancement is being considered qua her share. 10. Further, compensa!on of ₹10,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. 11. Accordingly, the total compensa!on payable to the appellants is re-computed as under: Head of Compensa>on Amount
Loss of dependency ₹7,46,760/-
Consor!um (widow + four children) ₹1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses ₹10,000/-
Loss of estate ₹10,000/- Total ₹8,66,760/- Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4196-2002 (O&M) 12. Since the Tribunal had already awarded a sum of ₹4,42,000/-, the enhanced amount payable comes to ₹4,24,760/-, which is rounded off to ₹4,25,000/-. 13. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be en!tled to enhanced compensa!on of ₹4,25,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe!!on !ll actual realiza!on. 14. The liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle shall remain joint and several. The enhanced compensa!on shall be appor!oned equally amongst the appellants-claimants. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 15. All pending miscellaneous applica!ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 17, 2026 Nee!ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document