FAO No. 3471 of IN THE HIG Smt. Vidhya Dev Hem Raj & Ors. CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. for t DEEPAK GUPTA, The award dated 16.0 Karnal (hereinaf adequacy of com 2. Brie a motor vehicula which was foun widow of the d Section 166 of t owner and insur the evidence, aw respondents join 3. Seek has argued that t returns (Ex.P7 a 2012-13 was ₹4,0 the deceased wa assessing incom 1 of 2018 Page No. 1 of 3 page HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR FAO No. 3471 of 2018 Decided on : 23.02.202 Devi Versus N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA r. Parveen K. Rohilla, Advocate for the appellant. *** TA, J. The present appeal has been filed 16.01.2018 passed by the learned inafter referred to as the Tribun compensation. Briefly noticed, Narender Singh, age icular accident dated 09.10.2015, in ound to have been driven in a ra e deceased, being the sole claima of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking nsurer of the offending vehicle.The , awarded a sum of ₹5,50,000/-, a jointly and severally liable. Seeking enhancement, learned cou hat the deceased was an income tax 7 and Ex.P8), his income for the ₹4,03,859/- and ₹2,88,900/- respec was an agriculturist owning agricu come on a notional basis at ₹1 ages HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 18(O&M) .2026 …Appellan …Respondent PTA filed by the claimant assailing the ned Motor Accident Claims Tribuna ibunal), limited to the question o , aged about 72 years, lost his life in 5, involving truck No. HP-12D-3406 a rash and negligent manner. The aimant, instituted a petition unde king compensation from the driver .The Tribunal, upon appreciation o , along with interest, holding th counsel for the appellant-claiman e tax assessee and as per income ta the assessment years 2011-12 and spectively. It is contended that since ricultural land, the Tribunal erred in ₹12,000/- per month. A furthe llant ents the unal, n of ife in 406, . The nder river, on of g the mant e tax and since ed in rther JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 3471 of grievance has b consortium ough 4. Havi finds no merit in 5. The an agriculturist, t devolved upon t asset has not bee the claimant is n and personal serv 6. It is family, courts m ordinarily survive 7. The an advanced ag mechanically ado absence of cogen exertion. 8. Ther month, keeping towards supervis Rather, the asses 9. As re towards loss of funeral expenses the Hon’ble Supr Sethi, wherein periodical enhan 1 of 2018 Page No. 2 of 3 page as been raised that compensatio ught to have been ₹48,000/- instea Having heard learned counsel and it in the appeal. The Tribunal has rightly observed t ist, the agricultural land continues to on the claimant and other legal hei t been extinguished. In such circums is not the agricultural income itself l services rendered by the deceased. It is well settled that where agri ts must cautiously assess depende rvives the death of the owner. The deceased was aged 72 years at age, income reflected in past adopted as proof of continuing ear ogent evidence regarding active ag Therefore, the Tribunal’s assessme ing in view the age, nature of avo ervision, cannot be said to be eithe ssessment reflects a balanced and p As regards conventional heads, the of consortium and ₹15,000/- ea nses. The same is in consonance w Supreme Court in National Insuran ein standardized amounts were hancement. ages ation under the head of loss o stead of ₹40,000/-. and perused the record, this Cour ed that although the deceased wa es to remain with the family and ha l heirs. Thus, the income generatin umstances, the real loss suffered b tself but the managerial, supervisor sed. agricultural land remains with the endency, as the income from land s at the time of the accident. At such ast income tax returns cannot b earning capacity, particularly in th e agricultural operations or persona ssment of income at ₹12,000/- pe avocation and limited contribution ither arbitrary or on the lower side nd pragmatic approach. the Tribunal has awarded ₹40,000/ each towards loss of estate and ce with the principles laid down b urance Company Limited v. Pranay ere prescribed with provision fo ss of ourt was d has ating ed by isory the land such t be n the sonal per ution side. 000/- and n by anay for JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 3471 of 10. The pronouncement consortium cann 11. This dependent claim whereas as per approach of the to the claimant. 12. How the award, this C claimant’s appea settled appellate diminution of the 13. Qua appreciation of illegality or mate interference by t 14. Cons justifying enhanc being devoid of m 23.02.2026 Jiten Whe Whe 1 of 2018 Page No. 3 of 3 page The award in the present case w ent of Pranay Sethi, and therefo annot be faulted. This Court further notices that laimant, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 per settled principles, the deduct the Tribunal has, therefore, already nt. However, since neither the insurer his Court refrains from reducing the ppeal seeking enhancement. Such llate principle that a claimant’s appe f the awarded amount in the absenc Quantum of compensation determi of evidence and application of se material misapplication of law has by this Court in appellate jurisdictio Consequently, the appellant has f hancement of compensation. The of merit. hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No ages se was rendered shortly after th refore, grant of ₹40,000/- toward at despite there being only one 1/3rd towards personal expenses duction could have been 1/2. The eady resulted in a degree of benefi urer nor the owner has challenged the compensation, particularly in uch restraint is consistent with th appeal should not ordinarily result in sence of a cross-appeal. ermined by the Tribunal is based on of settled principles. No perversity has been demonstrated warrantin iction. as failed to make out any ground he appeal is accordingly dismissed (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE r the ards one nses, The nefit nged in a the ult in d on rsity, nting ound issed JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.24 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document