IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 275 FAO-1177-2003 Date of decision :14.07.2026 PARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS LILU RAM AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate and Ms. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate for the appellants. **** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved by award dated 11.12.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellants-claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of death of Mukhtiar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased), who died in motor vehicular accident dated 08.01.2001 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving truck bearing registration No. PB-10- AJ-9406. Appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal as the same is 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.17 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1177-2003 -2- compensation: Income Rs.2,100/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 14 Loss of dependency Rs.2,35,200/- (Rs.16,800 x 14) Funeral expenses Rs.2,400/- Spousal consortium Rs.2,400/- Total compensation awarded Rs.2,40,000/- 4. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants claimed that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by working as a labourer as well as by running a dairy. 5. Perusal of evidence led by claimants-appellants show that except for making self serving oral assertions regarding vocation and income no other cogent and reliable material was placed by claimants to prove their claim. No documentary or cogent/corroborative evidence in this regard is available. Therefore, I do not find any error in the determination of the monthly income by the learned Tribunal which was assessed as Rs. 2100/- per month, and the same is accordingly upheld. However, the learned Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 14. 6. In the present case, the learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 38 years on the basis of the certificate issued by the Sarpanch (Mark 'A'), as no age was mentioned in the post-mortem report. The photocopy of the identity card (Mark 'B'), in which the age of the deceased was shown as 31 years, was not accepted because the original document was not produced, nor was its MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.17 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1177-2003 -3- author examined. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased as 38 years is also upheld. 7. The claimants-appellants are also entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and the appropriate multiplier to be applied for calculating the loss of dependency is 15 in view of fact that deceased was 38 years old. 8. Since the deceased was survived by seven dependents, namely, his widow, four children, and his parents, the deduction towards personal and living expenses shall be one-fifth (1/5th) of the income instead of one-third (1/3rd), as deducted by the learned Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium. Appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- 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 and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of claimants-appellants, claimants-appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 9. Accordingly, the re-worked compensation is as under: Income Rs.2,100/- per month Rs.2,100/- per month Future prospects 40% (2100+840) Rs.2,940/- Deduction 1/5th (2940-588) Rs.2,352/- Multiplier 15 15 Total loss of dependency Rs.2,352X12X15 Rs.4,23,360/- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.17 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1177-2003 -4- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2,3,4 and 5. Rs.40,000/-x 4 Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of filial consortium to claimant No. 6 and 7 Rs. 40,000/- x 2 Rs.80,000/- Total compensation awarded in appeal Rs.7,33,360/- Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,40,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.7,33,360/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.2,40,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.4,93,360/- 10. 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 except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate. Under these heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 11. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. 14.07.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.17 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document