FAO No.2120 of IN T 109 (2 cases) Beena and others Ranveer Singh an 2. FAO-2121 Naresh Kumar Ranveer Singh an CORAM: HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. Mr. Mr. for t **** AMARINDER S 1. This 2121-2003 in w passed by the lea to as ‘the Tribuna granted on accou sum of Rs.94,492 120 of 2003(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA others versus ingh and others 2121-2003 versus ingh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARIN Mr. Manvi Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Hary Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the respondent No.3. **** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. This order shall dispose of two appe in which subject matter of challeng the learned Motor Accident Claims Tri ribunal’) on the ground of quantum, w account of death of husband of appel .94,492/- was granted to appellant-Na PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH FAO No.2120 of 2003(O&M Reserved on:26.02.2026 Pronounced on:17.03.2026 Uploaded on:18.03.2026 …Appellants …Respondents …Appellant …Respondents ARINDER SINGH GREWAL , Haryana. o appeals, i.e. FAO-2120-2003 and FA hallenge is the award dated 07.04.20 ms Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter refer tum, whereby a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- appellant No.1 in FAO-2120-2003 an Naresh Kumar in FAO-2121-2003 O&M) 2026 ents ents and FAO- 7.04.2003 r referred - was and a 2003 on PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of account of inju 24.06.2001, whic driver. For the sa 2003 titled as ‘Be 2. Lear contended that th was travelling fr Kumar as a pillio negligent driving both, and the de submitted that th erroneous, as app deposed that the in pesticides and income at Rs.30 Further, it is con per annum with of 16, compens Tribunal erred in estate whereas R passed by the compensation to 3. In F witness, he prov days and thereaf 120 of 2003(O&M) -2- f injuries suffered by him, in the which took place due to rash and neg the sake of convenience, the facts are Beena and others Vs. Ranveer Sin Learned counsel for the appellants that the husband of appellant No.1 a ling from Kaithal to Cheeka on his m a pillion rider when, near Bharat Petr driving of respondent No.1, the acci the deceased succumbed after reach that the findings on Issue No.2 regar as appellant No.1 produced income ta at the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 es and as a karyana merchant, yet Rs.30,000/- per annum and depen is contended that the income ought to with dependency of Rs.1,20,000/- pe nsation of Rs.19,20,000/- was p rred in awarding only Rs.10,000/- tow reas Rs.80,000/- ought to have been the learned Tribunal deserves m ion to Rs.20,00,000/-. In FAO No.2121 of 2003, it was e proved that he remained admitted i hereafter, continued treatment for nea in the motor vehicular accident da nd negligent driving of respondent No cts are being taken from FAO No.2120 r Singh and others’. llants-claimants in FAO No.2120 of o.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 an his motorcycle with his brother Nar t Petrol Pump, Siwan, due to the rash e accident occurred, causing injuries reaching General Hospital, Kaithal. regarding quantum of compensation ome tax returns for the last four years 15,000/- per month from his shop deal t, yet the learned Tribunal assessed dependency at Rs.20,000/- per annu ught to have been taken as Rs.1,80,00 per annum and, applying a multip was payable. Furthermore, the learn towards loss of consortium and loss been awarded, and therefore, the aw es modification with enhancement submitted that while appearing a itted in a hospital at Panchkula for f or nearly five months as an OPD pati ent dated ent No.1- o.2120 of 0 of 2003 s.2 and 3 er Naresh rash and njuries to ithal. He nsation is years and p dealing sed the r annum. ,80,000/- multiplier e learned nd loss of the award ement of aring as a a for four D patient PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of and during this p subsequently too Panipat where h three days on th conveyance and permanent disabi learned Tribunal keeping in view t contended that t transportation ch specialized ortho treatment and op and subsequent r awarded under th erred in not awa injury as the ap business for abou per month, for w the amount of R towards special d have been award account of 19% was a young man his life and there 120 of 2003(O&M) -3- this period his right leg was operate tly took treatment from Dr. Sudeep here he remained admitted for eight on the second, incurring expenses o e and medical charges. He furthe disability and produced medical bills ibunal ought to have allowed Rs.70 view the practical difficulty in preserv that the learned Tribunal erred in n ion charges despite the fact that the ap orthopaedic treatment is unavailabl and operations including open reducti uent removal of implant, an amount nder this head. Furthermore, it was ot awarding any compensation for lo the appellant remained immobile an r about 14 months from where he wa , for which at least Rs.70,000/- ought t t of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pa ecial diet is stated to be meager and a awarded. Lastly, it was contended 19% permanent disability is inadequ g man of 27 years, who has to live w refore, at least Rs.2,50,000/- ough perated upon twice at Panchkula and udeep Sabharwal, Orthopaedic Surge t days on the first occasion and nses of about Rs.70,000/- on treatme further proved that he suffered 1 al bills amounting to Rs.31,492/- but Rs.70,000/- towards medical expen preserving all medical bills. It was furt d in not awarding any amount towa the appellant, a resident of Cheeka wh ailable and hence, he had to travel reduction and plating with bone graft ount of Rs.50,000/- ought to have b contended that the learned Tribu for loss of income during the period ile and unable to work in his kiry he was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,00 ought to have been granted. Additiona rds pain and sufferings and Rs.10,00 and a minimum of Rs.50,000/- ough nded that the award of Rs.38,000/ nadequate considering that the appell live with the said disability for the res ought to have been awarded under la and he Surgeon, n and for treatment, red 19% but the expenses further t towards ka where travel for e grafting ave been Tribunal period of kiryana 8,000/- itionally, s.10,000/- ought to ,000/- on appellant the rest of under this PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of head. According award be modifie 4. Lear that the award pa or infirmity, and the material avail no ground is mad 5. I ha with their able as 6. The deceased was ear support thereof w established fact involving financ account of an in learned Tribunal any independent therein, that is for the assessm ₹49,000/- as per deceased was ea Ex.P118 reflects forms part of the it appropriate to instead of ₹30,00 120 of 2003(O&M) -4- ordingly, it was prayed that the app odified while enhancing the amount o earned counsel for respondent N ard passed by the learned Tribunal do y, and that the findings recorded therei l available before the learned Tribunal is made out for interference in appeals I have heard learned counsel for th able assistance. The appellants in FAO-2120-2003 as earning ₹15,000/- per month, how ereof were the income tax returns for fact that the Income Tax Returns financial assessments, as it provide an individual's or entity's income, ibunal has correctly observed that the ndent or corroborative evidence. Eve at is ₹38,000/- for the assessment yea sessment year 1999-2000 (Ex.P118) as per Ex.P118, does not substantiate as earning ₹15,000/- per month. How flects the income of the deceased as of the documentary evidence placed o ate to assess the annual income of the ₹30,000/- per annum as taken by the le e appeal be allowed and the impug ount of compensation. No.3-Insurance Company submit nal does not suffer from any irregula therein are well-reasoned on the basis ribunal. It was accordingly contended t ppeals. for the parties and examined the reco 2003 had sought to establish that , however, the only material produced rns for certain years. Though it is a w eturns are pivotal in legal proceedi rovides an official and comprehens , however, in the present case, at the said returns were not supported e. Even otherwise, the income reflec nt year 1998-1999 (Ex.P115), ₹45,00 .P118), ₹47,000/- as per Ex.P117, a ntiate the claim of the appellants that h. However, since the income tax ret ed as ₹49,000/- per annum, and the sa aced on record, therefore, this Court fi of the deceased at ₹49,000/- per annu the learned Tribunal. impugned submitted regularity e basis of nded that e record, that the oduced in is a well oceedings rehensive case, the ported by reflected ₹45,000/- 117, and ts that the tax return the same ourt finds er annum, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of 7. Furt mortem report Ex in National Insu SCC 680, an add were four depen towards persona learned Tribunal Delhi Transport affirmed. Thus, t finds that the am is wholly inadeq towards loss of c the guidelines lai terms thereof, the funeral expense affection/consort by the Hon’ble S 8. Con against ₹3,30,000 9. Furt assess the month shop. Accordingl view of the law l an addition of 4 below 40 years o 120 of 2003(O&M) -5- Further, the deceased was 35 year port Ex.P1. In terms of the law laid do Insurance Company Limited v. Pr an addition towards future prospects dependents before the learned Tribu ersonal expenses is to be made. Th ibunal is in consonance with the princ sport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC hus, the total dependency comes to R he amount awarded by the learned Tri inadequate, inasmuch as a lump su ss of consortium, loss of estate and fun nes laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme of, the appellants are entitled to ₹18,1 xpenses and ₹1,93,600/-(₹48,400/ onsortium, (escalation @10% every th ’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s Consequently, the total compensatio 30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribu Further, in FAO No.2121 of 2003 monthly income of the appellant at ₹4 ordingly, the annual income of the ap e law laid down by the Hon’ble Supre n of 40% towards future prospects i years of age. Thus, the annual income 5 years of age, as reflected in the po laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ( pects @40% is liable to be made. Th Tribunal and thus, a deduction of The multiplier of 16 applied by e principles laid down in Sarla Verma CC 121 and, therefore, the same es to Rs.8,23,104/-. However, this Co ed Tribunal under the conventional he mp sum of ₹10,000/- has been gran nd funeral expenses, which is contrary upreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) ₹18,150/- each towards loss of estate ,400/-x4) towards loss of love very three years as per the law laid do thi’s case (supra)). ensation is re-assessed at ₹10,53,004 Tribunal. 2003, this court deems appropriate ₹4,000/-, who was owning a kary the appellant is assessed at ₹48,000/ Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supr pects is warranted as the appellant w income after addition of future prospe the post- me Court 17 (16) There n of 1/4th d by the erma v. same is this Court nal heads n granted ontrary to pra). In estate and love and laid down ,004/-, as opriate to karyana ,000/-. In (supra), llant was prospects PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of comes to ₹67,20 appellant, who w of the Hon’ble S permanent disab certificate (Ex. ₹2,17,056/-. In medical expense attendant charge suffering, and Accordingly, the 10. The compensation aw annum from the compensation sh No.2120 of 2003 The award passe allowed in above 11. Pend March 17, 2026 Pankaj* 120 of 2003(O&M) -6- ₹67,200/-. Applying the multiplier o who was 27 years of age at the time of ’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma disability suffered by the appella .P2) proved by PW2, the loss n addition thereto, the appellant penses as proved by medical bills, charges, ₹10,000/- towards transporta and ₹15,000/- towards loss of incom ly, the total compensation payable to th The enhanced compensation in both ion awarded by the learned Tribunal m the date of filing of the claim petitio ion shall be payable to the appellant f 2003 and to the appellant in FAO No passed by the learned Tribunal is m above terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, (AMARIN , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable:- lier of 17 as suitable to the age of ime of accident, in terms of the judgm erma (supra) and considering the 1 ppellant in accordance with disabi loss of future earning is assessed ellant is entitled to ₹31,492/- towa bills, ₹10,000/- towards special diet nsportation, ₹15,000/- towards pain income during the period of treatme le to the appellant comes to ₹2,98,548 n both the appeals i.e. over and above al shall also carry interest @7.5% petition till its realization. The enhan pellants-claimants in equal ratio in F O No.2121 of 2003 by respondent No al is modified and both the appeals if any, also stands disposed of. ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ned:- Yes/No Yes/No ge of the judgment the 19% disability sessed at towards l diet and pain and treatment. 8,548/-. above the 7.5% per enhanced in FAO ent No.3. peals are PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh