IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 273 FAO-1855-2004 (O&M) Decided on:20.07.2026 BHOJI RAM AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S UNIVERSAL TRANSPORT UMA BUILDING AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for appellants. Mr. K.P.S Virk, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-claimants (parents) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 08.01.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby appellants- claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.6,35,712/- on account of death of Nitin Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 16.12.2000 allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving truck bearing registration No.HR-38-C-7910 (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 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1855-2004 (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.5,676/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 14 Loss of dependency 6,35,712 Total compensation Rs.6,35,712/- 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 21 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 21 years of age at the time of the accident. ● Learned Tribunal has also failed to award just and appropriate compensation under the conventional 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. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1855-2004 (O&M) -3- 5. In present case, it was the case of appellants-claimants that deceased who was 21 years old, unmarried was running a proprietorship firm in the name of M/s. Bhoji Ram and Sons. Father of deceased had duly appeared as PW3 and stated these facts. PW3 stated that deceased was running business of AC sheet and was having dealership of Hyderabad Industries. PW3 further claimed that deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Deepak Garg-PW4, Chartered Accountant, who had filed returns of the proprietorship firm had duly placed on record copies of income tax returns pertaining to year 1998-1999 (Ex.PW4/1), 1999-2000 (Ex.PW4/2) and for the year 2000-2001 (Ex.PW4/3). Perusal of the income tax returns clearly goes to show that return for the year 1998-1999 was filed by deceased on 30.11.1999 and income tax return for the year 1999-2000 (Ex.PW4/2) was filed by deceased on 30.10.2000 prior to his death on 16.12.2000. 6. Learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the income tax returns for the year 1999-2000 (Ex.PW4/2) and had placed reliance upon income tax return of previous year of 1998-1999 (Ex.PW4/1). 7. Perusal of the award goes to show that learned Tribunal while considering Ex.PW4/2 took the same for the year 2000-2001. it is pertinent to note that Ex.PW4/2 pertains to assessment year 2000-2001 for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. The income of deceased as reflected in Ex.PW4/2 pertains to his income as on 31.03.2000 i.e. prior to the death of deceased on 16.12.2000 as the return was filed on 30.10.2000 within the assessment year of 2000-2001. There is a clear SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1855-2004 (O&M) -4- misreading of evidence by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has erred in not accepting Ex.PW4/2 for determining income of deceased. 8. Faced with the above fact, learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company has argued that average of three years needs to be taken. It is further argued that the business continued even after death of deceased and from income for the financial year 2000-2001, it is made out that the Firm had earned Rs.1,20,000/-. 9. On consideration, I find both the arguments raised on behalf of learned counsel for Insurance Company liable to be rejected. The income of deceased is to be seen on the date of his death or can be taken from the period for which cogent and reliable evidence is available. With passage of time, business gets established, the amount of profit also rises and therefore, there is no requirement to take average of three years for calculating income. Income tax return which is found to be cogent and reliable evidence can be taken for determining income of deceased. In present case, deceased had filed his income tax returns showing income of Rs.1,33,740/- for which he had paid income tax of Rs.14,453/- along with interest. Total tax amount amount was Rs.16,178/-. Accordingly income of deceased can safely be taken to be Rs.10,000/- p.m and Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. The argument on behalf of learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company that income had dipped for the financial year 2000-2001 in fact seems to be justified as deceased had died on 16.12.2000 during said financial year. So in fact it goes to show that after death of deceased, the income of Firm had taken dip and was reduced for remaining three months for which return (Ex.PW4/3) was SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1855-2004 (O&M) -5- filed. Therefore, income tax return for financial year 1999-2000 depicts correct picture about income of deceased. 10. Deceased was 21 years at the time of accident, therefore, addition of 40% towards future prospects needs to be added in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 and multiplier of ‘18’ 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 two dependents i.e. parents and was unmarried at the time of accident, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses has to be made. Accordingly, loss of dependency be calculated by taking salary of deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month, by making addition of 40% of future prospects, applying multiplier of ‘18’ and after making deduction of 50%. 11. 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. Appellants- claimants shall be entitled to filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. 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. SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1855-2004 (O&M) -6- 12. Reworked compensation payable to appellants-claimants is as under:- Income Rs.10,000/- per month Rs.10,000/- per month Future Prospects 40% (Rs.10,000+4,000) Rs.14,000/- Deduction 50% (Rs.14,000-7,000) Rs.7,000/- Multiplier 18 18 Total loss of dependency 7,000X18X12 Rs.15,12,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of filial consortium to both the appellants- claimants Rs.40,000/-X 2 Rs.80,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,35,712/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.16,22,000/- Difference of amount of compensation Rs.16,22,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) – Rs.6,35,712/- (awarded in appeal) Rs.9,86,288/- SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1855-2004 (O&M) -7- 13. 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 head shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 14. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document