FAO-1010-2016(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 FAO-1010-2016(O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Mange Ram Sharma & anr. ….Appellants Versus Rajesh Sharma & ors. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jashan Sekhon, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.K. Prajapa!, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..… NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa!on of Rs.13,87,240/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 12.10.2015 passed in MAV Pe!!on No.01 of 2015 dated 02.01.2015 filed under Sec!ons 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina<er referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking compensa!on of more than Rs.30.00 lacs. The two claimants before the learned Tribunal are the 43-year- old father and 41-year-old-mother of deceased Kishan Sharma, who was 24 years old at the !me of the accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the par!es concluded that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of ECCO No. UP-16CT-1364 (hereina<er “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; and MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1010-2016(O&M) 2 owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensa!on was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensa!on. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa!on by submiHng that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a taxi driver and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is submiKed that to prove the said avoca!on of the deceased, the appellants had produced voluminous documentary evidence in the form of Ex.P-4 to P-8; besides also examining PW-4 Kishore Kumar-employer of the deceased. It is submiKed that in this circumstance, learned Tribunal could not have taken income of the deceased as only Rs.8100/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that given the young age of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future prospects @ 50%. It is submiKed that interest has also been granted on the lower side. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa!on be enhanced. 5. Per contra, ld. counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the Tribunal has already awarded compensa!on in excess of what is admissible to the appellants as per law. It is submiKed that learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amounts under the conven!onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be dismissed. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the par!es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1010-2016(O&M) 3 7. It is the conten!on of the appellants that prior to the accident, deceased was working as a taxi driver and earning Rs.30000/- per month. It is the further conten!on of the appellants that said avoca!on and income stand proved form the documents Ex.P-4 to P-8; as also the statement of PW-4 Kishore Kumar-employer of the deceased. However, reliance of the appellants on the said documentary evidence is misplaced as the same have no connec!on to, and do not prove the alleged employment of the deceased. Ex.P-4 is the Registra!on Cer!ficate of the vehicle owned by Kishore Kumar/alleged employer of the deceased; Ex.P-5 is the Driving Licence of said Kishore Kumar; Ex.P-6 is the insurance in the name of Kishore Kumar; Ex.P-7 is the document of the Insurance Company in the name of Kishore Kumar; and Ex.P-8 is the driving licence of Kishan Sharma deceased. From the said documents, it is no where proven that deceased was employed with Kishore Kumar. AdmiKedly, Kishore Kumar has only made a bald statement that deceased was working as driver under his employment for the last three years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, if deceased was working with Kishore Kumar for three years, then why PW4 did not produce any service record of the deceased. Even no proof of disbursement of salary was produced by PW-4 to prove the alleged employment or income of the deceased. 8. Furthermore, a perusal of the relevant Minimum Wage No!fica!on issued by the State of Haryana applicable from 01.07.2014 shows that minimum wage payable to a highly skilled worker is only Rs.6289.50. Clearly, therefore, Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased on the higher side as ₹8100/– pm. MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1010-2016(O&M) 4 9. Further as deceased was bachelor, learned Tribunal has correctly made deduc!on of 50% towards personal expenses. Age of deceased was proved to be 24 on the date of accident on the basis of his postmortem report Ex.P-2. Accordingly, Tribunal has correctly applied mul!plier of 18. The ld. Tribunal has further made an addi!on of 30% towards future prospects. 10. No doubt, learned Tribunal ought to have made an addi!on of 40% towards future prospects. However, under the conven!onal heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards funeral and transporta!on expenses; and has granted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the claimants towards loss of love and affec!on; thereby gran!ng total compensa!on of Rs.13,87,240/-. Whereas as per structured formula enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, appellants were en!tled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- only under the conven!onal heads. 11. From the discussion above, it is clear that the appellants have already received compensa!on in excess or what is admissible to them as per law. In view of the same, I find no ground is made out to enhance the compensa!on. The present Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 12. Pending applica!on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) 16.02.2026 JUDGE monika i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh