IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 272 FAO-4543-2003 (O&M) Decided on:21.07.2026 JASBIR KAUR AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Devyansh, Advocate for Mr. Nishcal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants (wife, two children and mother) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 28.04.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellants-claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,93,800/- on account of death of Jagtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 03.05.1999 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving truck bearing registration No.HR-38-2263 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) 2. Since the finding of negligence on the part of respondent- driver is not being challenged by respondents either by way of appeal or by way of cross-objections, the detailed facts regarding manner of SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4543-2003 (O&M) -2- 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.2,100/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 16 Loss of dependency 2,68,800 (1400 X 12 X 16 Loss of spousal consortium Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total compensation Rs.2,93,800 /- 4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that:- ● Learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the deceased as pleaded and proved by the claimants. ● That the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier, despite the fact that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. ● That the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is excessive and contrary to the settled principles of law. ● That no addition towards future prospects has been made while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects ought to have been added, as the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. ● Learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and appropriate compensation under the conventional SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4543-2003 (O&M) -3- heads, namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal, parental, and filial consortium, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Appellants-claimants have sought determination of compensation for loss of dependency by claiming that deceased was working as motor mechanic at the time of his death and was earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. However, except for self-serving assertions, no material was placed on record to prove pleaded income and vocation of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the approach of learned Tribunal to consider deceased to be an unskilled worker being a youngman of 35 years cannot be held to be erroneous. Learned Tribunal had taken income of deceased to be Rs.2,100/- which is slightly over the minimum wages. The income so assessed by learned Tribunal is accordingly upheld and taken as such. Income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,100/- per month. Appellants- claimants had also claimed that deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident, however, learned Tribunal had taken age of deceased as per post-mortem report (Ex.P2) to be 35 years. No evidence contrary to post- mortem report has been placed on record. The age of deceased was within knowledge of appellants-claimants and it was for them to prove and rebut the age stated in post-mortem report which they failed to do. Accordingly, age of deceased is taken as 35 years. In view of age of deceased, addition of 40% towards future prospects needs to be added in the income of deceased for determination of loss of dependency in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4543-2003 (O&M) -4- Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 and multiplier of ‘16’ needs to be applied as per age of deceased in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121. Since the deceased is survived by total four dependents i.e. wife, two children and mother, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses has to be made. Accordingly, loss of dependency is to be calculated by taking salary of deceased to be Rs.2,100/- per month, by making addition of 40% of future prospects, applying multiplier of ‘16’ and after making deduction of 1/4th. 6. 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. Appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Appellant-claimant No.4 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial 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. 7. Reworked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as under:- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4543-2003 (O&M) -5- Income Rs.2,100/- per month Rs.2,100/- per month Future Prospects 40% (Rs.2,100+840) Rs.2,940/- Deduction 1/4th (2,940-735) Rs.2,205/- Multiplier 16 16 Total loss of dependency 2205X16X12 Rs.4,23,360/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of spousal consortium to appellant-claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 40,000 X 2 Rs.80,000/- Loss of filial consortium to appellant-claimant No.4 Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,93,800 /- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.6,13,360/- Difference of amount of compensation Rs.6,13,360/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.3,19,560/- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4543-2003 (O&M) -6- Rs.2,93,800/- (awarded by Tribunal) 8. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation (except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional heads shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 9. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document