IN T 209

 
  
 
and CORAM : Present: M fo














AMARINDER 1. seeking enhan Accident Clai Tribunal’), vid sum of ₹2,03,6 Singh in a mo occurred on th respondent No 2. impugned aw contended tha income of the treating him a indicating that -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGARH 
 
Versus and Another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advoca Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Co
























 NDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORA The present appeal has been file enhancement of compensation awa t Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinaft l’), vide award dated 02.05.2002. Th 03,600/- with 9 % interst p.a., on ac a motor vehicular accident involvin on the night of 28.06.2000 due to ent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellan d award is wholly inadequate and ed that the learned Tribunal has err of the deceased, Gurmeet Singh, at him as a mere skilled labourer, desp g that the deceased was earning ₹3,
    PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH FAO-4258-2002(O&M) Date of Decision: 24.04.2026
...Appellants ... Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL dvocate, and cate, nce Company. (through VC) (ORAL) en filed by the claimants-appellants n awarded by the learned Motor reinafter referred to as ‘the learned 2. The learned Tribunal awarded a on account of the death of Gurmeet volving Jeep No. RJV-5267, which ue to rash and negligent driving of ppellants–claimants submits that the e and calls for enhancement. It is as erred in assessing the monthly gh, at a meagre sum of ₹2,100/-, , despite cogent evidence on record ₹3,500/- per month. It is further 
lants lants otor rned ed a meet hich g of t the It is nthly , cord rther SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:23 I am the author of this document urged that the whereas, consi accident, the a it is submitted has just and re heads, future i that the compe in accordance 3. No.2–insuranc Tribunal is jus that the incom the multiplier the convention present appeal 4. record with th finds that the legal errors. 5. the determinat AW-2 Dr. Har Tax Returns ( plea that the d the said docum -2- at the learned Tribunal has incorrectl , considering that the deceased was 38 , the appropriate multiplier ought to h mitted that no addition towards future and reasonable compensation been aw uture income and loss of life. On the a compensation awarded by the learned dance with law. Per contra, learned counsel appe surance company contends that the l is just and reasonable and calls for n income has been rightly assessed in th tiplier applied is appropriate, and the entional heads is in accordance with l appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel fo ith their able assistance. Upon a per at the compensation awarded is not 'j The primary issue that arises for rmination of the income of the decea r. Harminderjit Kaur who further prod urns (Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-3) for the ye t the deceased was employed as a driv documents merely reflect the income
    orrectly applied the multiplier of 12, as 38 years of age at the time of the ht to have been higher. Additionally, future prospects has been made, nor een awarded under the conventional n the aforesaid premises, it is prayed arned Tribunal be suitably enhanced l appearing on behalf of respondent t the award passed by the learned s for no interference. It is submitted d in the absence of cogent evidence, nd the compensation awarded under with law. It is, thus, prayed that the sel for the parties and perused the a perusal of the record, this Court not 'just' and suffers from manifest es for consideration is with regard to deceased. The appellants produced produced carbon copies of Income the years 1999–2001 to support the a driver-cum-pharmacist. However, income of the establishment and do  f 12, f the ally, , nor ional ayed nced dent rned itted ence, nder t the the ourt ifest rd to uced ome t the ever, d do SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:23 I am the author of this document not establish evidence, such has been addu is, thus, rightl licence. Thoug on record that remains unsub licence or proo income of the assessed the i been indicated prevailing at assessment do notional determ 6. deceased as 3 Transport Cor age group of 3 by applying a calculation of not granting a Insurance Co 40% must be m was 38 years o survived by th -3- blish payment of any salary to the e, such as an appointment letter, salary adduced. The claim that the deceased rightly disbelieved in the absence of Though, from the statement of AW-3 d that the deceased was working as a unsubstantiated for want of document or proof of employment. In these circu of the deceased cannot be determined the income at ₹2100/- per month. icated, the said figure broadly corres g at the relevant time. In the abs ent does not warrant interference an determination of income. The Post Mortem Report (Ex. d as 38 years. As per the mandate t Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, th p of 36-40 is 15. The learned Tribun ying a multiplier of 12, which res ion of the loss of dependency. The lea nting any addition toward future pro e Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) st be made to the established income o years of age and was in a fixed-salary by three dependents (widow, son, a
    to the deceased. No corroborative , salary register or proof of payment, ceased was working as a pharmacist nce of any qualification, diploma or 3 Gurdarshan Singh, it has come g as a driver, the said assertion also umentary evidence such as a driving e circumstances, the occupation and rmined with precision. The Tribunal onth. Though no specific basis has corresponds to the minimum wages e absence of better evidence, the nce and is upheld as a reasonable Ex. A-5) proved the age of the andate of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi the appropriate multiplier for the Tribunal committed a manifest error h resulted in a significant under- he learned Tribunal further erred by re prospects. In view of National 017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of come of the deceased, considering he ry employment. The deceased is son, and mother-in-law). Thus, the  ative ent, acist a or ome also iving and unal has ages , the able f the lhi r the error - d by nal n of g he ed is , the SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:23 I am the author of this document deduction of conventional h the current sta Insurance (20 consortium, a These amount per the law lai (supra). 7. adding 40% to assessed at ₹ personal expen annual depend suitable to the at ₹3,52,800/ towards loss ₹18,150/- towa 10% escalatio Supreme Cour payable to the 8. compensation @7.5% per a realization, pa equal ratios. -4- n of 1/3rd toward personal expens ional heads awarded (₹2,000/- for fun t standards. Following Pranay Sethi e (2018), the claimants are entitled um, and ₹18,150/- for loss of estate mounts include the mandatory 10% e law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprem Taking the monthly income of 40% towards future prospects (₹840/ ₹2,940/-. After making a deducti l expenses, the monthly dependency c dependency (1960*12) ₹23,520/-. By to the age of the deceased, the total lo ,800/-. In addition thereto, the claima loss of consortium (₹48,400/- each owards funeral expenses and loss o alation every three years as per the l e Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) to the appellants works out to ₹5,34,30 The enhanced compensation, sation awarded by the learned Tribu per annum from the date of filing on, payable by the respondent No. 2
    expenses is upheld. However, the for funeral expenses) are contrary to Sethi (supra) and Magma General titled to ₹48,400/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses each. 10% escalation every three years as upreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case e of the deceased as ₹2,100/- and ₹840/-), the total monthly income is eduction of 1/3rd (₹980/-) towards ency comes to ₹1,960/-, making the . By applying a multiplier of 15 otal loss of dependency is calculated claimants are entitled to ₹1,45,200/- each to the three claimants) and loss of estate each, incorporating the r the law laid down by the Hon'ble supra). Thus, the total compensation 5,34,300/-. ation, i.e. over and above the Tribunal, shall also carry interest filing of the claim petition till its 2 to the appellants-claimants in  , the ry to ral ss of . rs as case and e is ards g the f 15 lated - and g the n'ble ation the erest ll its ts in SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:23 I am the author of this document 9. passed by the to the above ex 10. April 24, 2026 Vibhakti/Shub -5- In view of the aforesaid facts a y the learned Tribunal is modified and ove extent. Pending application(s), if any, sha (AMAR , 2026 hubham Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable
    facts and circumstances, the award ied and the present appeal is allowed ny, shall also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE asoned : Yes/No : Yes/No  ward wed SHUBHAM 2026.05.01 16:23 I am the author of this document