FAO-1863 IN THE HIG 224 Savita and an Ramesh Kum CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. enhancemen Accident Cla Award dated 01.10.2013 03 claimants year-old fath of accident. 2/widow and the deceased 2. basis of pl deceased-Vi 63-2015 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA and another Versus Kumar and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Ritik Mohindra, Advocate f Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for t Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance I GUPTA, J. The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation of ₹9,63 ent Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for sho dated 22.09.2014, passed in MACT P 2013 file under Section 166 of the M imants are the: i) 24-year-old widow; i father of deceased-Vijay Kumar wh ident. The present appeal has been file w and minor child, respectively; whe ceased is impleaded as respondent No. Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Vijay Kumar, had died in a moto D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1863-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ocate for te for the appellants. rance Company. ave filed the present appeal seeking 9,63,400/- awarded by the Motor or short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide ACT Petition No. 237 of 2013 dated Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The dow; ii) minor daughter; and iii) 48- who was 26 years old at the time en filed only by claimants No. 1 and y; whereas claimant No. 3/ father of nt No. 3 herein. re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that motor vehicular accident that took king otor vide The time and r of the that took RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1863 place on 08 bearing reg vehicle’) ow insured by awarded the from the d Respondents compensatio 3. compensatio income of th claimants ha deceased wa the learned ₹4600/- per per the rele Haryana, th 01.07.2013 Court by le therefore, su enhanced. 4. nothing by accordingly, 63-2015 (O&M) -2- 08.09.2013 due to the rash and g registration No. HR-16-L-2104 owned and driven by responden d by respondent No. 2-Insurance C the above compensation along wi the date of filing the claim pet ndents No. 1 and 2 were held lia nsation jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that the Tribu e of the deceased as only ₹4600/- per nts had duly proven on record that pri ed was working as Mason and earni arned Tribunal has assessed the inco per month which is on the lower sid e relevant Minimum Wages Notific na, the Minimum Wage payable to 2013 is ₹5341.51. Copy of the said by learned counsel for the appellan ore, submitted that monthly income o It is further submitted that the g by way of consortium, transporta ingly, prayed that the present appea and negligent driving of Tractor 2104 (hereinafter ‘the offending ondent No.1-Ramesh Kumar; and ance Company. Learned Tribunal ng with interest @ 6% per annum petition till actual realization. eld liable to pay the amount of appellants seeks enhancement of Tribunal has wrongly assessed the per month. It is submitted that the hat prior to the accident in question, earning ₹20,000/- per month. Yet e income of the deceased as only er side. It is submitted that even as otification issued by the State of ble to an unskilled worker w.e.f. e said Notification handed over in ppellant is taken on record. It is, ome of the deceased deserves to be at the learned Tribunal has awarded sportation or loss of estate. It is appeal may be accepted and the ctor ding and unal num t of t of the the tion, Yet only n as e of .e.f. r in is, o be rded It is the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1863 amount of enhanced. 5. vehemently appellants already been had made an law the same No. 2 prays f 6. heard learne 7. the appellan Vijay Kuma doing labour documentary of the decea and had also was a skille therefore, in an unskilled produced by w.e.f. 01.07. (rounded off 63-2015 (O&M) -3- t of compensation awarded to the Per Contra, learned couns ently opposes the submissions advanc and submits that in actual fact been awarded to the appellant-claim ade an addition of 50% towards futur e same should be 40%. Accordingly, l prays for dismissal of the present appe No other argument is raised on learned counsel for the parties and peru Perusal of the record shows th pellant-claimants that prior to the ac Kumar was an agriculturist; and was a labour work and was earning ₹20,00 entary evidence was adduced by the c deceased. However, claimant No. 1/ d also examined PW-4 Puran, who hav skilled Mason and was doing labo income of the deceased ought to h skilled worker as per the relevant M ced by learned counsel for the appel 01.07.2013. Therefore, income of the ed off to ₹5350/-) as that of an unskill to the claimants deserves to be counsel for respondent No. 2 advanced by learned counsel for the l fact compensation in excess has claimants, as the learned Tribunal s future prospects. However, as per ngly, learned counsel for respondent t appeal. sed on behalf of the parties. I have nd perused the case file in detail. ws that it was the pleaded case of the accident in question, deceased- was also a skilled Mason; and was 20,000/- per month. No doubt, no y the claimants to prove the income o. 1/widow had appeared as PW-3 have both deposed that deceased labour work. It is my view that ht to have been assessed at least as vant Minimum Wages Notification appellants in Court, as applicable of the deceased is taken as ₹5341.51 unskilled worker. be r the has unal per dent ave e of was , no me 3 ased that st as tion able 1.51 RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1863 8. determined Postmortem have been the Hon’ble vs. Pranay Tribunal has is liable to b has correctly deceased 26 However, u sum of ₹25 to be reasses 9. allowed; an re-assessed Supreme Co Delhi Trans following ma Details Income Future prosp Deduction Multiplier Loss dependency 63-2015 (O&M) -4- The record further reveals th ined to 26 years at the time of a ortem Report Ex. P-11. Accordingly, een made towards future prospects in on’ble Supreme Court in National In anay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SC al has made an addition of 50% towar le to be corrected. As there were 03 cl rrectly made deduction of 1/3rd towar ed 26 years old, the Tribunal has corr ver, under the Conventional Heads, the 25,000/- towards funeral expenses eassessed. In view of the above discuss and the amount of compensation essed as per the structured formula me Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (su Transport Corporation, Law Finde ing manner:- Before the Tribunal ₹4600/- per month prospects 50% ₹4600+2300 = ₹ 6900/- 1/3rd=₹2300 Annual dependency ₹6900-2300 x 12= ₹ 55,200/- 17 of dency ₹ 55,200/-x 17 = ₹9,38,400/- als that age of the deceased was of accident on the basis of his ingly, an addition of 40% ought to ects in conformity with judgment of nal Insurance Company Limited 16 SCC 680; whereas the learned towards future prospects. The same e 03 claimants, the learned Tribunal towards personal expenses. As the correctly applied multiplier of 17. the Tribunal has only awarded a enses. The said amount is also liable discussion, the present appeal is ation payable to the claimants is mula enunciated by the Hon’ble se (supra) and Sarla Verma vs. Finder Doc Id # 188882: in the Revised compensation ₹5350/- per month 40% ₹5350+2140=₹7,490/- 1/3rd= ₹2497/- Annual dependency ₹7490- 2497 x 12= ₹ 59,916/- 17 ₹ 59,916/- x 17 = ₹10,18,572/- was his t to t of ited rned ame unal the . ed a able is RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1863 Loss consortium Funeral expe Loss of Esta Total compensati Interest 10. 26.02.2026 rishu 63-2015 (O&M) -5- of rtium Nil al expenses ₹25,000/- f Estate Nil ensation ₹9,63,400/- 6% per annum Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ₹40,000/- each to all the 03 claimants i.e. ₹40,000 x 3 =₹1,20,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹11,68,572/- 6% any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.