FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -1- S. No.269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.07.2026 Buta Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. Balwinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Ms. Pratula Sethi, Amicus Curiae, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by the claimants against the Award dated 7.1.2003 passed in MACT case No.100 of 2001 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `Act’) for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.80,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Babu Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.6.2001 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.PB-13-F-2872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of award till realisation. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -2- “1. Whether deceased Babu Singh died in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of mini bus No.PB-13-F-2872 driven by respondent No.1?OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Babu Singh?OPP 3. Whether the driver of the mini bus was not holding a valid driving licence?OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have the locus standi and cause of action to file the petition?OPR 5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as alleged, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 5. Relief.” 3. The parties led their respective evidence. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the claimants, along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondent No.2- owner. However, Insurance Company was directed to make the payment but was given a right to recover the same from respondent No.2- owner as respondent No.1-driver was not holding a valid driving licence and there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -3- negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle and Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation but was given a right to recover the same from respondent No.2. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel contended that income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side and no future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased. Learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal has applied mutliplier of 5 to the loss of dependancy which is also on lower side. Likewise, only a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses, which is a meagre amount and no compensation has been awarded for ‘loss of consortium’ and `loss of estate’. Learned counsel prayed that appeal be accepted and adequate compensation be awarded. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680-National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -4- appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. 9. As per version of claimants, deceased namely Babu Singh was 53 years of age and used to sell chappals/ slippers and earn Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned Tribunal observed that in the FIR, his age is mentioned as 65 years and in the post mortem report Ex.41, his age is recorded as 55 years and in view of the discrepancy, Tribunal assessed his age to be 60 to 65 years. However, in 2025 INSC 366, Sunita Vs. Vinod Singh, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, the age mentioned in the post mortem can be relied upon to determine the age of the deceased. In the present case, the claimants claimed the age of the deceased to be 53 years and since his age is recorded as 55 years in the post mortem report Ex.41, his age is accordingly taken as 55 years. 10. The Tribunal did not rely upon the testimony of claimants that deceased used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month and assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/-. However, the accident had taken place in the year 2001 and some amount of guess work thus has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. The deceased was a chappal vendor and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Where the deceased is working in unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2001 and it can be assumed that the deceased who used to sell slippers must be earning at least Rs.3,500/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month as pleaded by claimants. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -5- 12. However, no future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the deceased. Deceased was 55 years of age as mentioned in post mortem report Ex.P41 and as such, 10% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),which takes his income to Rs.3,850/-- per month (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.350/-). 13. The claim petition has been filed by four sons and two daughters of the deceased and as such, he has left behind six dependents and 1/4rd of the income thus has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.963/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,887/- (Rs.3,850/- - Rs.963/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.34,644/- per annum (Rs.2,887/- X 12). 14. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 11 has to be applied as deceased was 55 years of age and after applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,81,084/- (Rs.34,644/- X 11). 15. In addition to this, claimant No.1(elder son of the deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of parental consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, claimants No.2 to 6 who are also sons and daughters of deceased are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of ‘loss of parental consortium’, in view of law laid down in Nanu Ram’s case (supra) and Satinder Kaur’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.6,51,000/-. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -6- 16. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants/claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,500/- per month 2. Age of deceased 55 years 3. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.350/- 4. Total income Rs.3,850/- 5. Number of dependents 6 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.963/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,887/- (Rs.3,850/- - Rs.963/-) 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.34,644/- (Rs.2,887/- X 12) 8. Multiplier 11 9. Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.3,81,084/- 10. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1 Rs.70,000/- 11. Consortium to claimants No.2 to 6 Rs,2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/0 X 5) Rs.40,000/- each Total Compensation Rs.6,51,084/- (Rounded off to Rs.6,51,000/-) Interest 9% 17. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimants No.1 to 6 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,51,000/-- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,71,000/- (Rs.6,51,000/- - Rs.80,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 1.8.2001, till realization payable by respondent No.2. However, RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1574 of 2003 (O&M) -7- Insurance Company shall make the payment to claimants but shall have a right to recover the same from respondent No.2- owner. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to claimants in equal shares along with proportionate interest. 18. The appeal was filed by Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, who has died and amicus curiae was appointed. Accordingly, copy of award be sent to MACT, Barnala and CJM-cum-Secretary, DLSA, Barnala for intimating the claimants and their counsel Shri J.K. Singla, Advocate. 19. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 20. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge July 27, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh