(Pronouncem IN TH Smt. Darsh Kuldip Sing 1 The da 2 The da 3 The da the we 4 Wheth is pron pronou 5 The de judgme CORAM: Argued By HARKESH an award Accident C whereby a compensat interest on accident da ncement) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR FAO N Darshan Kaur and another Versus p Singh and others he date when the judgment was rese he date when the judgment is pronou he date when the judgment is upload he website hether only operative part of the jud s pronounced or whether the full judg ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronounceme udgment, and reasons thereof. AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA d By:- Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate wit Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advoc for respondent No. 3-Insuran **** KESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, ch ward dated 16.01.2013 passed ent Claims Tribunal, Tarn Taran eby an amount of Rs. 2,84,0 ensation to the appellants/claiman on account of death of Ajit Sin ent dated 22.12.2005. UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH No. 2418 of 2013 (O&M) ...Appellants ...Respondents s reserved 24.03.2026 pronounced 11.05.2026 uploaded on 11.05.2026 judgment ll judgment is Full cement of full Not applicable E HARKESH MANUJA ate with ate and vocate Advocate surance Company. eal, challenge has been laid to ssed by the learned Motor (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), 2,84,000/- was awarded as laimants along with conditional jit Singh in a motor vehicular DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2-      [2] As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS [3] Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was wholly inadequate and contrary to the evidence available on record. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate oral evidence of PW1 Shangara Singh, PW2 Dalbir Singh, PW4 Lakhbir Singh and PW5 Darshan Kaur, who consistently deposed regarding the agricultural activities, dairy business and stud farm being operated by the deceased. He further contended that even if the exact income alleged by the claimants was not fully established through documentary evidence, the Tribunal could not have arbitrarily reduced the income to Rs.3,000/- per month, particularly when the deceased owned 10 acres of agricultural land and was independently engaged in dairy farming. Learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal failed to grant just compensation under conventional heads and also erred in not awarding appropriate interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. It was, thus, prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified and the compensation be enhanced along with just and reasonable interest. DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -3-      ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY. [4] Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [6] A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that although the learned Tribunal noticed the evidence led by the claimants regarding ownership of agricultural land and dairy farming activities of the deceased, yet it proceeded to assess monthly income of the deceased, at merely Rs 3,000/- per month solely on the ground that no documentary proof regarding exact income was produced. In the considered opinion of this Court, the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal was wholly unsustainable. [6.1] It is well settled that in claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied and the Tribunal is duty bound to determine just compensation on the basis of broad probabilities and DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -4-      surrounding circumstances. In rural and agricultural settings, documentary proof regarding exact income from agriculture, dairy business or allied occupations is seldom maintained. The Courts are therefore required to adopt a pragmatic approach while assessing income of self-employed agriculturists. [6.2] In the present case, it stands established on record that the deceased was owner of 10 acres of agricultural land. Jamabandies Ex.PX and Ex.PY were duly proved on record. The oral testimonies of PW1 Shangara Singh, PW2 Dalbir Singh, PW4 Lakhbir Singh and PW5 Darshan Kaur consistently establish that deceased Ajit Singh was engaged in cultivation, dairy farming and breeding horses. Nothing substantial could be elicited during cross-examination to completely discredit their testimonies. Furthermore, PW4 Lakhbir Singh specifically deposed that he used to purchase substantial quantity of milk from the deceased on daily basis. Even if the entire version regarding monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- is taken with some degree of caution in absence of documentary proof, yet assessment of income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month by the Tribunal is wholly unrealistic and contrary to ground realities prevailing even in the year 2005. [6.3] The learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that income derived from personal supervision and management of agricultural land is distinct from mere ownership of land. Merely because the agricultural land devolved upon legal heirs after DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -5-      death of the deceased would not disentitle the claimants from compensation towards loss of managerial and supervisory income generated by the deceased through personal cultivation and allied agricultural activities. Keeping in view the nature of avocation of the deceased, extent of agricultural land, dairy farming activities and overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that monthly income of the deceased can safely be assessed @ Rs. 12,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation. Such assessment would be fair, reasonable and in consonance with evidence available on record. QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. [7] As per the averments made in the claim petition and the testimony of claimants, the age of the deceased at the time of his death was stated to be 55 years, however, no documentary evidence has been produced on record to substantiate his age. Therefore, in the absence of any other cogent and reliable documentary evidence on record, this Court deems it appropriate to rely upon the testimony and accordingly assesses the age of the deceased as 55 years. Thus, placing reliance upon the law laid down in the case “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others” reported as (2017) 16 DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -6-      SCC 680, 15% of the income needs to be granted towards future prospects. Accordingly, multiplier of 11 is applied. Further, as the dependents of the deceased comprise the widow, and minor child; two in all, the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased therefore ought to be assessed at one-third. QUESTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS [8] Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional heads is also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of Consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- (48,000 x 2) as appellants/claimants being the widow and minor son are entitled to spousal and parental consortium. CONCLUSION [9] In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.) 1. Annual Income of deceased 1,44,000/- 2. Add 15% future prospects 21,600/- DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -7-      3. Total Income (Rs. 1,44,000 + Rs. 21,600) 1,65,600/- 4. Deduction (1/3rd) 55,200/- 5. Net Income (Rs. 1,65,600 – Rs. 55,200) 1,10,400/- 6. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 11 as per the age of 55 years (Rs. 1,10,400 x 11) 12,14,400/- 7. Loss of Consortium 96,000/- 8. Funeral expenses 18,000/- 9. Loss of estate 18,000/- Total compensation 13,46,400/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal 2,84,000/- Enhanced Amount 10,62,400/- Accordingly, appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive above enhanced compensation in the proportion already determined by the learned Tribunal. [10] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Dharampal vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,” reported as 2008 (12) SCC 208, has categorically held that interest on compensation is to be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition and not from the date of default. The said principle has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, as well as “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the claimants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -8-      realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [11] In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal preferred at the instance of appellants/claimants stands allowed. [12] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off. May 11, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document