-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1833-2002 Reserved on : 19.08.2026 Pronounced on : 26.08.2026 SUNITA RANI AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus TEJINDER PAL AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Paramjeet Singh, DAG Haryana. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate (through VC) for respondent No.4-insurance company. PARMOD GOYAL, J. Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants (wife and son) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 10.10.2001, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellants-claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,43,935/- on account of death of Surinder Kumar Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 26.03.2000 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-45- 1749 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’). 2. Since in the present appeal the only issue raised by the appellants-claimants is with regard to the quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross-objection has been preferred by any of the respondents to challenge findings of learned Tribunal as regards to rash and negligent CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.08.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1833-2002 -2- driving of offending vehicle driven by respondent-driver, therefore, the detailed facts regarding the manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 3. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation to appellants-claimants :- Income Rs.41,680/- per annum Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 10 Loss of dependency Rs.2,77,870/- (R.27,787x10) Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total compensation Rs.2,87,870/- 4. Appellants/claimants have sought enhancement of compensation on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in determining loss of dependency as has failed to take into consideration pleaded income and vocation of deceased. It is further asserted that future prospects were not added for calculating loss of dependency and even multiplier and deduction were wrongly made. Compensation under conventional heads were also not as per law and needs to be enhanced. 5. It was the case of appellants/claimants that deceased was aged 50 years old at the time of accident and was running a business in the name and style of M/s Kapoor Electric Sound and Mechanical Works at Panipat and he used to earn Rs.7,000 to 8,000/- per month. In order to prove pleaded income and vocation wife of deceased appeared as PW1 and asserted that her husband was running a shop and was earning Rs.7,000 to 8,000/- per month. She further claimed that shop stands closed as her son has no CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.08.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1833-2002 -3- knowledge about electrical appliances. Reliance has been placed upon income tax receipts/returns for the year 1994-95 upto 2000-2001 (Ex. P5 to Ex. P10). However, learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that income tax returns (Ex.P8 to Ex.P10) were furnished by appellants/claimants after the death of deceased and, therefore, has not taken the same into consideration. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration last income tax return (Ex.P7) which deceased himself had submitted wherein he had shown his income to be Rs.41,680/- per annum. Learned Tribunal has accordingly taken income of deceased to be Rs.41,680/- per annum. I do not find any error with the approach of learned Tribunal. 6. Learned Tribunal has taken age of deceased to be 52 years on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P4). Appellants/claimants have claimed that deceased was 50 years old, however, the best evidence regarding age of deceased was with appellants/claimants which they have failed to place on record for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, in absence of any other cogent documentary evidence regarding age of deceased, age mentioned in postmortem report has rightly been taken by learned Tribunal to be the age of deceased. 7. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.41,680/- per annum i.e Rs.3,473/- per month. Since deceased was aged 52 years at the time of accident, he would be entitled to addition of 10% towards future prospects in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 and keeping in view of age of deceased to be 52 years, multiplier of ‘11’ would be applicable as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.08.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1833-2002 -4- Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121. Similarly, deduction towards personal expenses has to be made on the basis of number of dependents which are two in present case i.e. wife and son. Accordingly, deduction to the extent of 1/3rd shall be applicable. 8. The loss of dependency, therefore, has to be determined by taking monthly income of deceased to be Rs.3,473/- per month by adding future prospects to the extent of 10%, by applying multiplier of ‘11’ and by making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. 9. Apart from compensation for loss of dependency, appellants- claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appellant-claimant No.1 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellant-claimant No.2 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. 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 appellants-claimants, appellants-claimants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 10. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs.3,473/- per month Rs.3,473 per month Future Prospects 10% (Rs.3,473 + 347) Rs.3,820/- Deduction 1/3rd (Rs.3,820 –1273) Rs.2,547/- Multiplier 11 11 CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.08.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1833-2002 -5- Total loss of dependency Rs.2,547 x 11 x 12 Rs.3,36,204/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant No.2. Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.4,46,204/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,87,870/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.4,46,204/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,87,870/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.1,58,334/- 11. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation awarded in appeal along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization (except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate). Under conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 12. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 26.08.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.08.26 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document