FAO20022021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 Harpreet kaur and others ....Appellants V/s Vishal Raj and others .…Respondents     

 Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Mallika Dhillon, Advocate, for Mr. S.S Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3ins. co. *** 
  The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants i.e the widow and minor sons of the deceased Subeg Singh @ Subaig Singh seeking enhancement in compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’), Fatehgarh Sahib vide award dated 02.03.2021 on account of death of Subeg Singh @ Subaig Singh, who expired in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 12.02.2019. 2. The facts as emanating from the paper book are that, Subeg Singh @ Subaig Singh, who was stated to be a security guard at Jaggi City Centre, Ambala City, on 12.02.2019, was going to village Sanjarpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala from his place of work on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB11BU7871. Gurpreet Singh, brotherinlaw of Subeg Singh was following him on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB39 E4171. Αt about 11.30 PM, when they were going towards Kalka Chowk, Ambala City from Railway Over Bridge near Jail, Ambala Cantt. to Rajpura Road, a maruti van bearing registration No.HR37B9024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, at a very high speed, came from the back side VIKAS CHANDER 2026.03.25 17.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO20022021 (O&M)
2 and hit the motorcycle of Subeg Singh with great force. As a result of the same, he fell on the road along with his motorcycle, and he suffered multiple injuries. The driver of Maruti Van ran away from the spot after seeing the serious condition of the injured. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, from where, he was shifted to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh for treatment, but on 19.02.2019, Subeg Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. FIR No.90 dated 19.02.2019 was registered under Section 279 & 304A of IPC at PS Baldev Nagar Ambala City against respondent No.1. 3. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident and was working as a Security Guard at Jaggi City Centre, Ambala City and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs. 14,000/ per month. It had also been averred that the claimants were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.50 lacs along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization was claimed. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) filed their written statement. It was submitted that the claim petition was false and frivolous and the claimants had no right to file the same. All averments were denied. 5. Respondent No.3 insurance company took its usual defences in the written statement and denied the factum of the accident. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
                                       !"#$"%"& ' ( ) *+,,   - -()( ' ) )./ -. (*+,, VIKAS CHANDER 2026.03.25 17.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO20022021 (O&M)
3  #   (  .          !01  -))*+,!# &  -(- 2 !3  7. Parties led their respective evidence. 8. The MACT held that the accident as a result of which Subeg Singh had expired had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. As regards quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was assessed as 55 years and his income was assessed as Rs.8,000/ per month. Relying upon the law laid down in 4 051, '  ) (   $ 00 $ and    -  6 7 (  0 (  ( #!0!$$ the following compensation was awarded: 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the MACT did not examine the matter from the correct perspective. It has been submitted that the deceased was employed as a security guard at Jaggi City Centre, Ambala and was earning Rs.14,000/ per month. He submits, that even CW1 Harpreet Kaur (wife of deceased) and CW2 Gurpreet Singh (brother  Sr. No. Heads Calculation i. Income of the deceased Rs.8,000/ per month ii. 10% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs.8,000+800= Rs.8,800/ per month iii. 1/4 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.8,8002,200= Rs.6,600/ iv. Compensation after multiplier of 11 is applied Rs.6,600x12x11=Rs.8,71,20 0/ v. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/ vi. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/ vii. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/  !"#$%&'! (& ')*+,--./ VIKAS CHANDER 2026.03.25 17.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO20022021 (O&M)
4 in  law of deceased) had corroborated the factum of the deceased being employed as a security guard, but still his salary was assessed as Rs.8,000/ per month, which is on the lower side. It has further been contended that, consortium was also granted only to the wife of the deceased and not to all the dependants as was supposed to be granted in terms of , ' 8 case 
and  -9 4 0-('5- !-0 !-,-+0+0+1- 11. 
 , learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the MACT is adequate and that in the absence of any documentary evidence as regards the employment of the deceased as a security guard, the income was rightly assessed as that of an unskilled worker. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 13. Coming to the first aspect i.e. income of the deceased, although, CW1 Harpreet Kaur (wife of deceased) and CW2 Gurpreet Singh (brother  in  law of deceased), had corroborated the factum of the deceased being employed as a security guard, no documentary evidence was produced on record to prove the same. The MACT, therefore committed no error by assessing his income as per the minimum wages. However, the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed as Rs. 8,000/ per month, being the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, which, at the relevant time in 2019 were Rs. 8,827.40/ per month, and was supposed to be assessed as such. Further, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of  , ' 8  
 - 9 
, consortium, @ Rs.40,000/ was required to be granted to each dependant (for all the claimants), which had only been granted to the wife of the deceased. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.03.25 17.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO20022021 (O&M)
5 14. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the compensation is assessed as under, keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India: Sr. No. Heads of Claim Awarded by the MACT Enhanced Compensation i. Age of the deceased 55 years No change ii. Income of the deceased Rs.8,000/ per month Rs. 9,000/ per month (rounded off from Rs. 8,827.40/) iii. 10% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs.8,000+Rs. 800= Rs.8,800/ per month Rs. 9,000/ + Rs. 900=Rs. 9,900/ iv. 1/4 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.8,800 Rs.2,200= Rs.6,600/ Rs. 9,900 – Rs. 2,475=Rs. 7,425/ v. After applying Multiplier of 11 Rs.6,600x12x11 =Rs.8,71,200/ Rs. 7,425x12x11 = Rs. 9,80,100/ vi. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 Rs. 1,60,000/ (Rs. 40,000 x 4 as to all claimants) vii. Loss of Estate Rs.15000/ Rs. 15,000/ viii. Funeral expenses Rs.15000/ Rs. 15,000/  !"#$%&'! (& ')*+---./ '++2-+--./ The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.11,70,100/. After deducting a sum of Rs.9,41,000/ as assessed by the MACT, the balance compensation comes to Rs.2,29,100/. This amount would be payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with interest @ 7.5% annually. The disbursal and liability to pay the same would be as per the award. 15. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.      
        !345,1,-,6 vcgarg/g Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIKAS CHANDER 2026.03.25 17.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document