IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 FAO-1770-2002 (O&M) Date of decision:02.07.2026 MEMOONA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SUKH RAM AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for appellants. Mr. Ram Avtar Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate and Mr. Jayant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.8. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are the wife and children of Tayub (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.02.1997, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No. HYG.326, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 05.09.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), being not in accordance with their entitlement. 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1770-2002 (O&M) -2- 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.1,500/- per month Deduction 1/3rd (1500-500=1,000) Multiplier 16 Loss of dependency Rs.1,92,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.8,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.2,00,000/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contented that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- by working as a mechanic. Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has also asserted that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to be made to the extent of 40% in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 and deduction of 1/5th is required to be made towards personal expenses of deceased as deceased is survived by six dependents. Appropriate amount of compensation needs to be granted under the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of parental consortium in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. In the present case appellants-claimants have claimed that deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, as the deceased was working as SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1770-2002 (O&M) -3- a mechanic. However, except for making oral assertions that deceased was working as a mechanic and earning Rs.4,000/- per month, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show income and vocation of deceased. No evidence is available to conclude that deceased was technically qualified to work as mechanic by way of education or training or by long experience. In absence of any evidence supporting oral claim that deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by working as a mechanic, learned Tribunal has rightly taken minimum wages payable to a skilled worker prevalent at the time of accident. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,558/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident as per the post-mortem report, accordingly multiplier of ‘16’ would be applicable while determining loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% towards future prospects ought to be added to the income of the deceased in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &Ors. (supra). Since the deceased is survived by six dependents i.e wife and five children, 1/5th deductions towards personal expenses needs to be made. Further, appellant-claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.15,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 to 6 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium @ Rs.15,000/- each. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- towards loss of estate. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer 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 SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1770-2002 (O&M) -4- appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 6. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs.1,558/- per month Rs.1,558/- per month Future prospects 40% (1558+623) Rs.2,181/- Deduction 1/5th (2181-436) Rs.1,745/- Multiplier 16 16 Total loss of dependency Rs.1,745X12X16 Rs.3,35,040/- Loss of Estate Rs. 7,500/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 7,500/- Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.15,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 to 6 Rs.15,000x5 Rs.75,000/- Total compensation awarded in appeal Rs.4,40,040/- Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,00,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.4,40,040/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,00,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.2,40,040/- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1770-2002 (O&M) -5- 7. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 8. Present appeal is allowed in above terms. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 02.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.06 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document