IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (236) Smt. Raj Bala and others Ravinder Kumar And Others CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Kulvir for the appellants. Mr. Vishwajit for respondent No.4 Mr. Ankit Kumar Sangwan, Advocate, with Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.7 *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in a claim pet accident dated 10.07.2000 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR- resulting in the death of Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, whereby the learned Tribunal granted Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no holding that rash and negligent driving of either of the offending vehicles was not proved. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Smt. Raj Bala and others Versus Ravinder Kumar And Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. Mr. Ankit Kumar Sangwan, Advocate, with Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.7-United India Insurance Co *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in a claim petition arising out of a motor vehicular accident dated 10.07.2000 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration -46/4045 and Jeep bearing registration No. HR resulting in the death of Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, whereby the learned Tribunal granted only ₹50,000/ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no holding that rash and negligent driving of either of the offending vehicles was not proved. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2922-2003 (O&M) Reserved on: 13.05.2026 Pronounced on: 26.05.2026 Uploaded on: 26.05.2026 ...Appellants ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Insurance Company. Mr. Ankit Kumar Sangwan, Advocate, with United India Insurance Co The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the ition arising out of a motor vehicular accident dated 10.07.2000 involving Tata Sumo bearing registration 46/4045 and Jeep bearing registration No. HR-46-A/6138, resulting in the death of Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, whereby the ₹50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of no-fault liability while holding that rash and negligent driving of either of the offending ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.0 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar Gulia, was going from Rohtak to village Assan. He was riding pillion on a scooter (No. HR-12-8408) driven by Manoj Kumar (PW near Mohindra Public School on Sonipat Road HR-46-A/6138) driven by respondent No. 6 was moving ahead of them. The jeep driver suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signal. To avoid hitting the jeep, the scooter driver turned to the right to overtake it. At that moment by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the scooter. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and was taken to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), he died on 30.07.2000. Regarding this incident, an FIR (Ex. PB) was registered on 27.07.2000 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. respondents contested the claim petition by filing their written statement the oral testimonies of witnesses (PW along with the documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of t scooterist and that the claimants failed to prove any negligence by the offending drivers. Accordingly, the claim under Section 166 was rejected, and the impugned award was passed restricting the relief only to 'No 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.0 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar Gulia, was going from Rohtak to village Assan. He was riding pillion on a scooter (No. 8408) driven by Manoj Kumar (PW near Mohindra Public School on Sonipat Road A/6138) driven by respondent No. 6 was moving ahead of them. The jeep driver suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signal. To avoid hitting the jeep, the scooter driver turned to the right to overtake it. At that moment, a Tata Sumo (No. HR by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the scooter. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and was taken to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak. After staying under treatment for 20 days, he died on 30.07.2000. Regarding this incident, an FIR (Ex. PB) was registered on 27.07.2000 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. respondents contested the claim petition by filing their written statements. After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal evaluated the oral testimonies of witnesses (PW-1 to PW along with the documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of t scooterist and that the claimants failed to prove any negligence by the offending drivers. Accordingly, the claim under Section 166 was rejected, and the impugned award was passed restricting the relief 'No-Fault Liability'. Aggrieved and dissat Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.07.2000 at around 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar Gulia, was going from Rohtak to village Assan. He was riding pillion on a scooter (No. 8408) driven by Manoj Kumar (PW-3). When they reached near Mohindra Public School on Sonipat Road, Rohtak, a Jeep (No. A/6138) driven by respondent No. 6 was moving ahead of them. The jeep driver suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signal. To avoid hitting the jeep, the scooter driver turned to the right , a Tata Sumo (No. HR-46/4045) driven by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the scooter. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and was taken to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Rohtak. After staying under treatment for 20 days, he died on 30.07.2000. Regarding this incident, an FIR (Ex. PB) was registered on 27.07.2000 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The respondents contested the claim petition by filing their written s. After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal evaluated 1 to PW-3 and RW-1 to RW-3) along with the documentary evidence. Consequently, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the scooterist and that the claimants failed to prove any negligence by the offending drivers. Accordingly, the claim under Section 166 was rejected, and the impugned award was passed restricting the relief . Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the claimants modification and enhancement of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned award is perverse and based on a complete misappreciation of the evidence on record. It was argued that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in shifting the entire blame onto the ignoring the composite negligence of the offending drivers; the jeep driver had applied sudden brakes without any signal, and the oncoming Tata Sumo was being driven at a reckless speed in a school zone. It was further submitted that the testim Manoj Kumar (PW technical contradictions. Learned counsel heavily stressed that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to a mere under Section 140 of the Act on account of deciding the claim under Section 166. It was urged that the loss of dependency was completely ignored despite clear proof that the deceased was a permanent employee (L.D.C.) with the Rohtak, drawing a gross monthly salary of Tribunal completely failed to apply the correct multiplier of 15 and the unit system, leaving the widow and minor children without financial support, and ₹50,000/- statutory awards under conventional heads like loss of consortium and funeral expenses. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the 3 the claimants-appellants have preferred the present appeal for its modification and enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned award is perverse and based on a complete misappreciation of the evidence on record. It was argued that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in shifting the entire blame onto the ignoring the composite negligence of the offending drivers; the jeep driver had applied sudden brakes without any signal, and the oncoming Tata Sumo was being driven at a reckless speed in a school zone. It was further submitted that the testim Manoj Kumar (PW-3), was wrongly discarded on minor, hyper technical contradictions. Learned counsel heavily stressed that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to a mere under Section 140 of the Act on account of deciding the claim under Section 166. It was urged that the loss of dependency was completely ignored despite clear proof that the deceased was a permanent employee (L.D.C.) with the Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam Rohtak, drawing a gross monthly salary of Tribunal completely failed to apply the correct multiplier of 15 and the unit system, leaving the widow and minor children without financial support, and altogether omitted the medical expenses of - incurred during his 20 days of hospitalization as well as the statutory awards under conventional heads like loss of consortium and funeral expenses. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the appellants have preferred the present appeal for its modification and enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned award is perverse and based on a complete misappreciation of the evidence on record. It was argued that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in shifting the entire blame onto the scooteristwhile completely ignoring the composite negligence of the offending drivers; the jeep driver had applied sudden brakes without any signal, and the oncoming Tata Sumo was being driven at a reckless speed in a school zone. It was further submitted that the testimony of the eye-witness, 3), was wrongly discarded on minor, hyper- technical contradictions. Learned counsel heavily stressed that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to a mere ₹50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act on account of 'no-fault liability' instead of deciding the claim under Section 166. It was urged that the loss of dependency was completely ignored despite clear proof that the deceased was a permanent employee as Lower Division Clerk BijliVitran Nigam (U.H.B.V.N.), Rohtak, drawing a gross monthly salary of ₹7,591/-. Furthermore, the Tribunal completely failed to apply the correct multiplier of 15 and the unit system, leaving the widow and minor children without altogether omitted the medical expenses of incurred during his 20 days of hospitalization as well as the statutory awards under conventional heads like loss of consortium and funeral expenses. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document findings on Issue No. 1 be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and the compensation be enhanced substantially with interest. been placed upon the judgme Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. Company the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. It is maintained that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well interference by this Court. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the paper the evidence led by the part 6. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 misapplication of the settled principles governing motor accident compensation claims. Even if the version put forth by the ld. Tribunal is accepted that the scooter driver Manoj Kumar was negligent while attempting to o been automatically attributed to deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, who was merely a pillion rider on the scooter. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had contributed towards the occurrence in any manner whatsoever. It is an 4 dings on Issue No. 1 be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and the compensation be enhanced substantially with interest. been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. contra, learned counsel for respondent No. Company and respondent No.7–Insurance Company the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. It is maintained that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned and do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. heard the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the paper-book, the records of the learned Tribunal and the evidence led by the parties. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 suffers from patent illegality and misapplication of the settled principles governing motor accident compensation claims. Even if the version put forth by the ld. Tribunal is accepted that the scooter driver Manoj Kumar was negligent while attempting to overtake the jeep, the said negligence could not have been automatically attributed to deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, who was merely a pillion rider on the scooter. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had contributed towards the occurrence in any manner whatsoever. It is an dings on Issue No. 1 be set aside, the appeal be allowed, and the compensation be enhanced substantially with interest. Reliance has of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(2015) 9 SCC 273. contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4– National Insurance Insurance Company contended that the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. It is maintained that the findings recorded by reasoned and do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. heard the learned counsel for both parties and have carefully book, the records of the learned Tribunal and This Court finds that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal suffers from patent illegality and misapplication of the settled principles governing motor accident compensation claims. Even if the version put forth by the ld. Tribunal is accepted that the scooter driver Manoj Kumar was negligent while vertake the jeep, the said negligence could not have been automatically attributed to deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar, who was merely a pillion rider on the scooter. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had contributed towards the occurrence in any manner whatsoever. It is an ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document admitted factual position on record that at the time of the accident, the deceased, Jai Kanwar, was merely riding as a pillion passenger on the two-wheeler. The handle, the brakes, the s control of the vehicle were in the hands of the driver, Manoj. The record clearly shows that it was Manoj who attempted to overtake the vehicle ahead and turned the scooter towards the right side, leading to the unfortunate co incomprehensible that the learned Tribunal has somehow attributed fault or liability to Jai Kanwar. A pillion rider is a passive passenger. By no stretch of imagination or physical possibility can a person sitting on or a sudden turn executed by the driver. Jai Kanwar had no steering control, no authority over the speed, and absolutely no role in the decision- rashness or negligence of factually impossible and a patent perversity in law. His personal contributory negligence is 17 days in lodging the FIR 27.07.2000] registration is not a condition precedent under the Motor Vehicles Act. In a fatal accident, the immediate priority of a grieving family is naturally to cope with the sh rituals rather than rushing to a police station. 7. The learned Tribunal has committed a severe legal error by misinterpreting and misapplying the theory of "No 5 admitted factual position on record that at the time of the accident, the deceased, Jai Kanwar, was merely riding as a pillion passenger on the wheeler. The handle, the brakes, the s control of the vehicle were in the hands of the driver, Manoj. The record clearly shows that it was Manoj who attempted to overtake the vehicle ahead and turned the scooter towards the right side, leading to the unfortunate collision. This Court finds it completely incomprehensible that the learned Tribunal has somehow attributed fault or liability to Jai Kanwar. A pillion rider is a passive passenger. By no stretch of imagination or physical possibility can a person sitting on the rear seat be held responsible for an overtaking maneuver or a sudden turn executed by the driver. Jai Kanwar had no steering control, no authority over the speed, and absolutely no role in the -making process of driving the vehicle. To visit t rashness or negligence of the driver upon an innocent passenger is factually impossible and a patent perversity in law. His personal contributory negligence is absolute zero percent 17 days in lodging the FIR [accident on 27.07.2000] does not affect the validity of the claim, as prompt registration is not a condition precedent under the Motor Vehicles Act. In a fatal accident, the immediate priority of a grieving family is naturally to cope with the shock of bereavement and perform final rituals rather than rushing to a police station. The learned Tribunal has committed a severe legal error by misinterpreting and misapplying the theory of "No admitted factual position on record that at the time of the accident, the deceased, Jai Kanwar, was merely riding as a pillion passenger on the wheeler. The handle, the brakes, the speed, and the entire physical control of the vehicle were in the hands of the driver, Manoj. The record clearly shows that it was Manoj who attempted to overtake the vehicle ahead and turned the scooter towards the right side, leading to llision. This Court finds it completely incomprehensible that the learned Tribunal has somehow attributed fault or liability to Jai Kanwar. A pillion rider is a passive passenger. By no stretch of imagination or physical possibility can a person the rear seat be held responsible for an overtaking maneuver or a sudden turn executed by the driver. Jai Kanwar had no steering control, no authority over the speed, and absolutely no role in the making process of driving the vehicle. To visit the alleged the driver upon an innocent passenger is factually impossible and a patent perversity in law. His personal absolute zero percent.Additionally, delay of [accident on 10.07.2000 and FIR on does not affect the validity of the claim, as prompt registration is not a condition precedent under the Motor Vehicles Act. In a fatal accident, the immediate priority of a grieving family is ock of bereavement and perform final rituals rather than rushing to a police station. The learned Tribunal has committed a severe legal error by misinterpreting and misapplying the theory of "No-Fault Liability" to ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document restrict or limit the scope of this case. Liability" under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial, statutory protection meant exclusively to assist the victim. It ensures that a victim or their family can claim minimum relief without having to endure a long legal battle t floor, not a legal ceiling. itself by assuming that because the passenger Jai Kanwar committed "no fault," his case must be limited or viewed through the restrictive lens of a This is a full Motor Vehicles Act clearly negligent. Once it is established that the driver and the passenger was completely innocent, the case becomes a textbook matter of the "no- companies from paying full, dynamic damages. The on the part of Jai Kanwar does not lower the liability of the wrongdoers; it amplifies it, making the tortfeasors fully answerable for awarding "just compensation" covering loss of dependency, loss of life, and consortium. When a person l accident, the primary claim is for the loss of dependency and loss of estate under Section 166. The lack of medical or hospital bills does not wipe away the hard fact of death. Applying the strict law laid down by the Hon’ble Sup Assurance Co. Ltd. &Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 273 6 restrict or limit the scope of this case. Liability" under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial, statutory protection meant exclusively to assist the victim. It ensures that a victim or their family can claim minimum relief without having to endure a long legal battle to prove who was negligent. floor, not a legal ceiling. The Tribunal fundamentally misdirected itself by assuming that because the passenger Jai Kanwar committed "no fault," his case must be limited or viewed through the restrictive lens of a no-fault framework. This is a complete inversion of the law. This is a full-fledged claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, where the drivers of the offending vehicles were clearly negligent. Once it is established that the driver and the passenger was completely innocent, the case becomes a textbook matter of Composite Negligence -fault" status of the deceased to insulate the insurance companies from paying full, dynamic damages. The on the part of Jai Kanwar does not lower the liability of the wrongdoers; it amplifies it, making the tortfeasors fully answerable for awarding "just compensation" covering loss of dependency, loss of life, and consortium. When a person l accident, the primary claim is for the loss of dependency and loss of estate under Section 166. The lack of medical or hospital bills does not wipe away the hard fact of death. Applying the strict law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assurance Co. Ltd. &Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 273 restrict or limit the scope of this case. The concept of "No-Fault Liability" under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial, statutory protection meant exclusively to assist the victim. It ensures that a victim or their family can claim minimum relief without having to o prove who was negligent. It is a legal The Tribunal fundamentally misdirected itself by assuming that because the passenger Jai Kanwar committed "no fault," his case must be limited or viewed through the restrictive fault framework. This is a complete inversion of the law. fledged claim petition filed under Section 166 of the , where the drivers of the offending vehicles were clearly negligent. Once it is established that the drivers were negligent and the passenger was completely innocent, the case becomes a Composite Negligence. The Tribunal cannot use fault" status of the deceased to insulate the insurance companies from paying full, dynamic damages. The absence of fault on the part of Jai Kanwar does not lower the liability of the wrongdoers; it amplifies it, making the tortfeasors fully answerable for awarding "just compensation" covering loss of dependency, loss of life, and consortium. When a person loses their life in a motor accident, the primary claim is for the loss of dependency and loss of estate under Section 166. The lack of medical or hospital bills does not wipe away the hard fact of death. Applying the strict law laid reme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 273, where a victim has not ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document contributed to the accident, the liability of the offending joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The claimants cannot be restricted or forced to suffer or liability. 8. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar was working as a Cashier Haryana Electricity Board, Rohtak, and as per his salary certificate (Ex.PA), his monthly income is assessed at deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is liable to be made in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PranaySethi, future prospects, the gross monthly income comes to + ₹2,250]. Since the two daughters are married and settled in their respective matrimonial homes, the active financial dependen upon the widow and the two minor sons. For a family with two dependent members, a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses is standard and legally correct, whereby the net monthly dependency is assessed at dependency at the deceased as 46 years, a multiplier of '13' is applicable in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in v. Delhi loss of dependency works out to 7 contributed to the accident, the liability of the offending joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The claimants cannot be restricted or forced to suffer due to the Tribunal's legal confusion surrounding fault or liability. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar was working as a Cashier Haryana Electricity Board, Rohtak, and as per his salary certificate (Ex.PA), his monthly income is assessed at eceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is liable to be made in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, after adding 30% for future prospects, the gross monthly income comes to ₹2,250]. Since the two daughters are married and settled in their respective matrimonial homes, the active financial dependen upon the widow and the two minor sons. For a family with two dependent members, a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses is standard and legally correct, whereby the net monthly dependency is assessed at ₹6,500/- [₹9,750 dependency at ₹78,000/- [₹6,500 × 12]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as 46 years, a multiplier of '13' is applicable in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transport Corporation, (2009) loss of dependency works out to ₹10,14,000/ contributed to the accident, the liability of the offending joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The claimants cannot be restricted or due to the Tribunal's legal confusion surrounding fault Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased Jai Kanwar @ Jai Kumar was working as a Cashier-cum-Clerk with the Haryana Electricity Board, Rohtak, and as per his salary certificate (Ex.PA), his monthly income is assessed at ₹7,500/-. Since the eceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and was in permanent employment, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is liable to be made in view of the law laid down by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Accordingly, after adding 30% for future prospects, the gross monthly income comes to ₹9,750/- [₹7,500 ₹2,250]. Since the two daughters are married and settled in their respective matrimonial homes, the active financial dependency rests upon the widow and the two minor sons. For a family with two dependent members, a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses is standard and legally correct, whereby the net monthly ₹9,750 - ₹3,250] and the annual ₹6,500 × 12]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as 46 years, a multiplier of '13' is applicable in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SarlaVerma 9) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the total ₹10,14,000/- [₹78,000 × 13]. ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. In addition thereto, each claimant is entitled to of love and affection/consortium, totalling ₹18,150/- after applying the mandatory escalation @ 10% every three years as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PranaySethi’s the appellants works out to Ninety-Two Dependency) + + ₹18,150 (Loss of Estate)]. 10. The enhanced compensation, i.e. over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, shall also carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by respondent No equal ratios. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and the present appeal is allowed to the above extent. 12. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed o order as to costs. May, 26, 2026 anil Whether speaking/reasoned 8 In addition thereto, each claimant is entitled to of love and affection/consortium, totalling - each is payable towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, after applying the mandatory escalation @ 10% every three years as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PranaySethi’s case (supra). Thus, the total com the appellants works out to ₹12,92,300/ Two Thousand Three Hundred Dependency) + ₹2,42,000 (Consortium) + ₹18,150 (Funeral Expenses) ₹18,150 (Loss of Estate)]. The enhanced compensation, i.e. over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, shall also carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by respondent Nos.4 and 7 to the appella equal ratios. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and the present appeal is allowed to the above extent. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed o order as to costs. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : In addition thereto, each claimant is entitled to ₹48,400/- towards loss of love and affection/consortium, totalling ₹2,42,000/-, and a sum of each is payable towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, after applying the mandatory escalation @ 10% every three years as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in . Thus, the total compensation payable to ₹12,92,300/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) [₹10,14,000 (Loss of ₹2,42,000 (Consortium) + ₹18,150 (Funeral Expenses) The enhanced compensation, i.e. over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, shall also carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, to the appellants-claimants in In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and the present appeal is allowed to All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. No AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No : Yes/No ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document