FAO-2160-2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2160-2003 Smt. Santosh and another ...Appellants Versus Bijender and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 01.04.2026 Pronounced on: 06.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera/ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Ms. Jahnvi Juneja, Advocate and Ms. Ni(ka Malik, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 04.03.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, on the limited ques(on of adequacy of compensa(on. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 24.10.1998, Bharat Singh, an 18- year-old unmarried boy, was working as a helper/second driver on a trailer and was res(ng in front of the vehicle at Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. At that (me, another trailer bearing registra(on No. HR-38-2293, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, ran over him, resul(ng in his instantaneous death. The occurrence led to registra(on of a criminal case against the offending driver. 3. The claim pe((on under Sec(on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2160-2003 [2] was filed by the widowed mother and minor brother of the deceased, claiming compensa(on of ₹10,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia(on of evidence, held the accident to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹1,10,000/- as compensa(on. 4. Aggrieved of the quantum so awarded, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensa(on awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is argued that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side; no addi(on towards future prospects has been made; an excessive deduc(on towards personal expenses has been applied; and appropriate mul(plier has not been correctly applied. It is further submiDed that the dependency of the widowed mother and minor brother has not been properly appreciated. 6. Learned counsel for the insurer, while suppor(ng the assessment of income, fairly concedes that no addi(on towards future prospects has been made and that the mul(plier adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the seDled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the par(es and having perused the record, this Court finds that the finding of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal has aDained finality. The only issue that arises for considera(on is with regard to determina(on of just and reasonable compensa(on. 8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 18 years of age and was working as a helper/second driver. There is no cogent documentary evidence regarding his exact income. In such circumstances, the income is YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2160-2003 [3] required to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relevant (me. The minimum wages in the year 1998 were approximately ₹1,750/- per month. The learned Tribunal has taken the income at ₹2,000/- per month, which is slightly on the higher side and thus, favourable to the claimants. This Court finds no reason to reduce the said income and affirms the same, assessing the annual income at ₹24,000/-. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, an addi(on towards future prospects is mandatory even in the case of self-employed or fixed wage earners. Considering the age of the deceased (18 years), an addi(on of 40% is warranted. Accordingly, the annual income stands enhanced to ₹33,600/-. 10. The next ques(on pertains to deduc(on towards personal expenses. Ordinarily, in the case of a bachelor, 50% of the income is deducted towards personal and living expenses. However, as held in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporaon (2009) 6 SCC 121, where the deceased leaves behind a widowed parent and dependent siblings, a departure can be made in appropriate cases. In the present case, the deceased was the only earning member, and the claimants comprise a widowed mother and a minor brother. Therefore, deduc(on of one-third of the income towards personal expenses would meet the ends of jus(ce. 11. AKer deduc(ng one-third, the annual loss of dependency works out to ₹22,400/-. 12. Applying the mul(plier of 18, as per the age of the deceased in terms of the seDled law, the total loss of dependency is assessed at ₹4,03,200/-. 13. In addi(on to pecuniary loss, the claimants are en(tled to YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2160-2003 [4] compensa(on under conven(onal heads. In view of period of accident (1998), an amount of ₹15,000/- each is awarded towards loss of filial consor(um to both the claimants. Further, ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 14. Accordingly, the total compensa(on payable to the claimants is computed as under:
Loss of dependency : ₹4,03,200/-
Filial consor(um (₹15,000 × 2) : ₹30,000/-
Loss of estate : ₹5,000/-
Funeral expenses : ₹5,000/-
Total : ₹4,43,200/- 15. AKer deduc(ng the amount of ₹1,10,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa(on comes to ₹3,33,200/-. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be en(tled to enhanced compensa(on of ₹3,33,200/-, payable jointly and severally by all the respondents along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe((on (ll realiza(on. 17. Out of the enhanced amount, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- along with propor(onate interest shall be payable to the mother of the deceased, and ₹1,33,200/- along with propor(onate interest shall be payable to the brother of the deceased. 18. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 06.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 06.04.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document