IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 210 FAO-3141-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.05.2026 Ram Partap Virli and Another …..Appellants Vs. Onkar Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vikramjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Nikunj Dhawan, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensa(on by way of modifica(on of the award dated 04.10.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat. 2. The unfortunate accident in ques(on took place on 19.05.1999 on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registra(on No. UP-12C-5355, resul(ng in death of one Vikram Virli, a young unmarried man aged about 25 years. His parents ins(tuted a claim pe((on under Sec(on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa(on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Learned Tribunal, a9er apprecia(ng the evidence led by the par(es, returned a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently awarded compensa(on of ₹4,37,000/- along with interest, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3141-2002 (O&M) 3. The present appeal is confined only to the ques(on of adequacy of compensa(on. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹3,000/- despite cogent oral as well as documentary evidence proving that the deceased was employed as Manager with M/s Chanan Lal Brothers and was drawing salary of ₹4,000/- per month. It is submi>ed that the salary cer(ficate and tes(mony of the employer remained unrebu>ed and, therefore, there was no jus(fica(on to reduce the income assessed by the claimants. It is further argued that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects, contrary to the principles subsequently crystallized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and anr.”, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 and “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others”, 2018(18) SCC 130. 5. Per contra, learned counsel represen(ng the insurance company does not dispute that no amount towards future prospects was awarded by the Tribunal. However, it is argued that the deceased being unmarried, deduc(on towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 50% and not 1/3rd. It is further contended that only the mother could be treated as dependent in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporaon (supra). Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income at ₹3,000/- in absence of reliable proof regarding actual earnings. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the par(es and carefully examined the record. 7. The first ques(on requiring determina(on pertains to the income of the deceased. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the Page No. 2 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3141-2002 (O&M) deceased was employed as Manager with M/s Chanan Lal Brothers. An official from the said establishment entered the witness-box and categorically deposed, on the basis of official record, that the deceased was drawing salary of ₹4,000/- per month. Salary cer(ficate Ex.PW3/A was also duly proved. The witness further stated that the deceased had joined service in January, 1999 and con(nued in employment (ll the date of the accident. Significantly, the said evidence remained unshaken during cross- examina(on and no contrary evidence was produced by the respondents. 8. In the face of such unimpeached evidence, the learned Tribunal was not jus(fied in arbitrarily reducing the monthly income to ₹3,000/- without assigning any cogent reason. It is a se>led principle of law that once reliable documentary and oral evidence regarding income is produced and remains unrebu>ed, the same cannot be discarded merely on conjectures. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at ₹4,000/-. 9. The age of the deceased at the (me of accident was approximately 25 years and 10 months. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporaon (supra), the appropriate mul(plier applicable would be ‘17’. 10. Since the deceased was unmarried, deduc(on towards personal and living expenses is liable to be assessed at 50%, as an unmarried person is presumed to spend a substan(al por(on of his income upon himself. The submission raised by learned counsel for the insurance company to that extent deserves acceptance. 11. Further, though the accident occurred prior to the pronouncement of judgment in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), the benefit of future prospects is required to be extended while determining just compensa(on. The deceased was below 40 years of age Page No. 3 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3141-2002 (O&M) and was employed on a se>led basis. Therefore, addi(on of 40% towards future prospects would be legally jus(fied. 12. Consequently, the compensa(on payable to the claimants is re- calculated as under: Heads Amount
Monthly income ₹4,000/-
Annual income ₹48,000/-
Addi(on of 40% towards future prospects ₹19,200/-
Total annual income ₹67,200/-
Deduc(on of 50% towards personal expenses ₹33,600/-
Annual loss of dependency ₹33,600/-
Mul(plier 17
Total loss of dependency ₹5,71,200/- 13. Apart from the aforesaid amount, the claimants would also be en(tled to compensa(on under conven(onal heads. Keeping in view the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (supra) and considering that the accident pertains to the year 1999, an amount of ₹20,000/- each is awarded towards parental consor(um to both the parents. Further sums of ₹10,000/- each are awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. 14. Thus, the total compensa(on payable to the claimants is computed as under:
Loss of dependency : ₹5,71,200/-
Parental consor(um : ₹40,000/-
Funeral expenses : ₹10,000/-
Loss of estate : ₹10,000/- Page No. 4 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3141-2002 (O&M)
Total : ₹6,31,200/- 15. Since the learned Tribunal has already awarded compensa(on of ₹4,37,000/-, the claimants become en(tled to enhanced compensa(on of ₹1,94,200/-, which is rounded off to ₹1,95,000/-. 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-claimants are held en(tled to enhanced compensa(on of ₹1,95,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe((on (ll actual realiza(on. The enhanced amount shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 17. It is further directed that out of the enhanced compensa(on, an amount of ₹20,000/- along with propor(onate interest shall be payable to claimant-father Ram Partap Virli, whereas the remaining enhanced amount along with propor(onate interest shall be payable to claimant- mother Prem Lata Virli. 18. Pending miscellaneous applica(on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 19. Disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 12, 2026 Nee(ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 5 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document