FAO-6233 IN THE HIG 224-B Meena and a Ramesh Kum CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. enhancemen Accident Cla Award dated 25.02.2014 02 claimants the time of a 2. basis of pl deceased-Vi 08.09.2013 registration 33-2015 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA and another Versus sh Kumar and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance GUPTA, J. The appellant-claimants have cement of the compensation of ₹8,02 ent Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for sho dated 22.09.2014, passed in MACT 2014 filed under Section 166 of the imants are the parents of deceased-Vi e of accident. Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Vikas, had died in a motor vehicul 2013 due to the rash and negligent ation No. HR-16-L-2104 (hereinafter D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-6233-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ate for vocate for the appellants. rance Company. filed the present appeal seeking 8,02,600/- awarded by the Motor or short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide ACT Petition No. 22 of 2014 dated the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Vikas who was 23 years old at re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that ehicular accident that took place on gligent driving of Tractor bearing inafter referred to as ‘the offending king otor vide ld at the that e on ring ding RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 vehicle’) ow insured by awarded the from the d Respondents compensatio 3. compensatio on the lowe deceased wa month. Yet, as only ₹48 the relevant applicable w income of a therefore, su enhanced. learned Trib and nothing the rate of accordingly, amount of enhanced. 4. vehemently 33-2015 (O&M) -2- 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 income of lower side as only ₹4800/- per mo ed was working as Conductor and Yet, the learned Tribunal had assesse 800/- per month. Learned counse evant Minimum Wages Notification is able w.e.f. 01.07.2013, to submit that e of a skilled worker is ₹5601.51 (ro ore, submitted that monthly income o It is further submitted that unde d Tribunal has awarded only ₹25,000 thing has been awarded by way of c te of interest should also be grante ingly, prayed that the present appea t of compensation awarded to the Per Contra, learned couns ently opposes the submissions advanc 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 me of the deceased has been taken er month. It is submitted that the and was earning ₹15,000/- per assessed the income of the deceased ounsel for the claimants relies upon ation issued by the State of Haryana it that as per the said Notification, .51 (rounded off to ₹5600/-). It is, ome of the deceased deserves to be under the conventional heads the 25,000/- towards funeral expenses; y of consortium, loss of estate; and granted on the higher side. It is appeal may be accepted and the to the claimants deserves to be counsel for respondent No. 2 advanced by learned counsel for the and unal num t of t of ken the per ased pon tion, t is, o be the and It is the be r the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 appellants already been had made an law the same No. 2 prays f 5. 6. case file in of the appell 7. the appellan Vikas was No doubt, claimants to had been ma alleged inco copy of cond of the decea as per the r 01.07.2013. ₹5600/- per 01.07.2013 month. 8. determined t 33-2015 (O&M) -3- 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 I have heard learned counsel ile in detail. I find some merit in the a appellant. Perusal of the record shows th pellant-claimants that prior to the ac working as conductor and was e oubt, no definite documentary evid nts to prove the income of the decea en made by claimant No. 1/mother of d income of the deceased. However, f conductor’s licence Ex.P-18. It is m deceased ought to have been assessed the relevant Minimum Wages Noti 2013. As such, income of the decease per month, as per Minimum Wages 2013. Thus, income of the decease The record further reveals th ined to be more than 23 years at the t l fact compensation in excess has claimants, as the learned Tribunal s future prospects. However, as per ngly, learned counsel for respondent t appeal. ed on behalf of the parties. for the parties and perused the n the arguments advanced on behalf ws that it was the pleaded case of the accident in question, deceased- was earning ₹15,000/- per month. y evidence was adduced by the eceased; and only oral statement her of the deceased as PW-5 qua the ever, the claimants have produced It is my view that therefore, income ssessed at least as an skilled worker s Notification, as applicable w.e.f. eceased ought to have been taken as ages Notification applicable w.e.f. eceased is assessed as ₹5600/- per als that age of the deceased was t the time of accident. Accordingly, has unal per dent the half e of the ent the ced ome rker .e.f. n as .e.f. per was gly, RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 an addition o conformity w Insurance C SCC 680; towards futu 9. Tribunal ha Bachelor at deduction o Conventiona ₹25,000/- to re-assessed. 10. allowed; an re-assessed Supreme Co Delhi Trans following ma Details Income Future prosp Deduction Multiplier Loss dependency 33-2015 (O&M) -4- ition of 40% ought to have been mad mity with judgment of the Hon’ble ance Company Limited vs. Pranay whereas the learned Tribunal h s future prospects, the same is liable t Keeping in view of the age o al has correctly applied multiplier lor at the time of accident, the learned tion of 50% towards personal exp ntional Heads, the learned Tribunal towards funeral expenses, the sai essed. 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 ₹4800/- per month prospects 50% ₹4800+2400 = ₹7200/- 50% = ₹3600 Annual dependency ₹7200-3600 x 12= ₹ 43,200/- 18 of dency ₹ 43,200/- x 18 = ₹7,77,600/- made towards future prospects in on’ble Supreme Court in National anay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 unal has made an addition of 50% iable to be corrected. age of the deceased, the learned tiplier of 18; as deceased was a learned Tribunal has correctly made al expenses. However, under the ibunal has only awarded a sum of the said amount is also liable to be discussion, the present appeal is sation 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 ₹5600/- per month 40% ₹5600+2240 = ₹7840/- 50% = ₹3920/- Annual dependency ₹7840-3920 x 12= ₹ 47,040/- 18 ₹ 47,040/- x 18 = ₹8,46,720/- ts in onal ) 16 50% rned as a ade the of o be RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-6233 Loss consortium Funeral expe Loss of Esta Total compensati Interest 11. 26.02.2026 rishu 33-2015 (O&M) -5- of rtium Nil al expenses ₹25,000/- f Estate Nil ensation ₹8,02,600/- 6% per annum Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ₹40,000/- each i.e. 40,000 x 2 = ₹80,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹9,56,720/- 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.