-1- 258 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-229-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 MACHHLA DEVI AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus JAI KISHAN AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being wife, children (three) and parents of deceased Ishar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 21.02.2001 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving tractor bearing chassis No.158558, being aggrieved by insufficient compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 25.05.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross- objection has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.31 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-229-2005 -2- 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 compensation :- Income Rs.1,500/- per month Deduction 1/3rd (Income taken as Rs.1,000/- for 4 years and Rs.500/- for 12 years) Multiplier 16 Total compensation awarded Rs.1,20,000/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has sought enhancement of compensation on the following grounds: That the 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 20 years of age at the time of the accident. That no addition towards future prospects has been made while calculating the loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent of 40% of the monthly income ought to have been added, as the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of the accident. That the 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. 5. It is the case of appellants/claimants that deceased was 20 years old at the time of accident and was working as a labourer, earning Rs.90/- to CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.31 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-229-2005 -3- Rs.100/- per day. In order to prove the pleaded income and vocation of deceased, appellants/claimants have relied upon self-serving oral assertions. However, no other reliable and cogent evidence in support of his oral assertions has been produced. In absence of any cogent and reliable material to conclude pleaded income and vocation of deceased, I deem it fit to take the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker in the year 2001. Minimum wages in 2001 was Rs.2,035/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.2,035/- per month. However, learned Tribunal had erred in not taking into consideration future prospects for calculating loss of dependency and applying proper multiplier. 6. In view of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680, since the deceased was a young man of 20 years of age, therefore, 40% towards future prospects needs to be taken into consideration for determining loss of dependency. Similarly, multiplier which needs to be applied would be ‘18’ instead of ‘16’ which was granted by learned Tribunal. Since deceased was unmarried and is survived by his parents, deduction of 50% needs to be made towards personal expenses. 7. Loss of dependency has to be determined by taking monthly income of deceased as Rs.2,035/- per month, by applying multiplier of ‘18’ and adding 40% towards future prospects. 50% deduction towards personal expenses is to be made to calculate loss of dependency. 8. Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. Appellants–claimants shall CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.31 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-229-2005 -4- also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. 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, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 9. Accordingly, reworked compensation payable to appellants/claimants is as under :- Income Rs.2,035/- per month Rs.2,035/- per month Future Prospects 40% (Rs.2,035+ 814) Rs.2,849/- Deduction 50% (2,849 –1,424) Rs.1,425 Multiplier 18 18 Total loss of dependency Rs1,425 x 12 x 18 Rs.3,07,800/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of filial Consortium to claimant No.1 & 2 Rs.40,000 x 2 Rs.80,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.4,17,800/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,20,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.4,17,800/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.1,20,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.2,97,800/- 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 conventional heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.31 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-229-2005 -5- award. 11. Appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms. 12. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 28.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.31 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document