IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.10038 of 2014 Jatinder Kaur and others . . . Appellants vs. Amir Khan and another . . . . Respondents * * ** Reserved on: August 25, 2026 Pronounced on: August 27, 2026 Pronounced fully/operative part : Fully CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.09.2014. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that Ravinder Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 26.10.2012 on account of rash and negligent driving of tempo bearing registration No. CH-53T-0638. At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1-Amir Khan, who was also its owner. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited. The widow, minor son and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation from the driver- cum-owner and the insurer. SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.10038 of 2014 2026:PHHC: 120424 3. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal assessed the total compensation at ₹8,15,000/- and held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same along with interest. However, in view of the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, recovery rights were granted to the Insurance Company against respondent No.1-driver-cum- owner. 4. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 did not contest the claim petition before the Tribunal and was proceeded against ex parte. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that although the pleaded income of the deceased was ₹10,000/- per month from his work as a conductor and ₹8,000/- per month from agricultural activities, could not be proved, the Tribunal erred in assessing his monthly income at only ₹5,000/-. According to learned counsel, the minimum wages applicable in the State of Punjab at the relevant time were ₹5,200/- per month. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged 26 years and, though the multiplier of 17 has correctly been applied, no addition towards future prospects has been made. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also stated to be inadequate. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, while defending the award insofar as its liability is concerned, submits that the recovery rights granted by the Tribunal deserve to be maintained. However, the learned counsel is unable to dispute the applicability of the minimum wages of ₹5,200/- per month, addition towards future prospects and the principles governing compensation under the conventional heads, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully gone through the record. SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.10038 of 2014 2026:PHHC: 120424 8. The finding of the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving has not been challenged before this Court. Likewise, the grant of recovery rights to the Insurance Company is not in dispute. Respondent No.1, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, neither contested the claim petition before the Tribunal nor appeared before this Court despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte. 9. Thus, the only question requiring consideration in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 10. The claimants failed to establish the pleaded income of ₹18,000/- per month, there being no cogent or reliable evidence in support thereof. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages. However, the monthly income of ₹5,000/- taken by the Tribunal was on the lower side. The minimum wages applicable in the State of Punjab at the relevant time being ₹5,200/- per month, the same would constitute a reasonable basis for assessing the income of the deceased in the absence of proof of his actual income. 11. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at ₹5,200/-, resulting in an annual income of ₹62,400/-. Since the deceased was 26 years of age, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is required in terms of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the annual income, after addition towards future prospects, comes out to be ₹87,360/-. 12. There were four claimants. Accordingly, in terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), 1/4th of the income is required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The annual contribution to the family thus comes to ₹65,520/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, which is appropriate having regard to the age of the deceased, the loss of dependency works out to be ₹11,13,840/-. 13. As regards compensation under the conventional heads, there being four claimants and the accident having occurred prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), an amount of ₹40,000/- each is awarded towards loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium, resulting in a total amount of SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.10038 of 2014 2026:PHHC: 120424 ₹1,60,000/- under this head. In addition, ₹15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate. 14. The total compensation payable to the claimants is, therefore, reassessed as under: Head Amount Loss of dependency ₹11,13,840/- Consortium ₹1,60,000/- Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- Loss of estate ₹15,000/- Total ₹13,03,840/- 15. The Tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹8,15,000/-. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced amount of ₹4,88,840/-. For the sake of convenience, the enhanced compensation is rounded off to ₹4,89,000/-. 16. The question regarding the liability of the Insurance Company also requires no reconsideration. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence authorising him to drive a light motor vehicle, whereas the offending vehicle was a heavy motor vehicle. Thus, respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company after directing it to first satisfy the award. The said finding has not been shown to suffer from any error warranting interference. 17. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-claimants are held entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹4,89,000/-, over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation. SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.10038 of 2014 2026:PHHC: 120424 18. The Insurance Company shall, in the first instance, satisfy the enhanced compensation along with interest and shall thereafter be entitled to recover the same from respondent No.1-driver-cum-owner in accordance with the recovery rights granted by the Tribunal. 19. Out of the enhanced compensation, an amount of ₹2,00,000/- each shall be paid to the widow and minor child of the deceased, along with proportionate interest. The remaining amount of ₹89,000/-, along with proportionate interest, shall be shared equally by the parents of the deceased. 20. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. August 27, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No Whether reportable? : Yes/No Uploaded on: August 27, 2026 SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document