FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 FAO-768-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision :- 16.07.2026 Sangeeta Sharma and others ...Appellants Versus Bikramjit Singh @ Vikramjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Ms. Avinash Mandla, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. CM-2402-CII-2017 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 182 days in filing the instant appeal. The applicants were not aware of legal remedy available to them. Thereafter, on making arrangements for money, applicant No. 1 approached her counsel to file appeal. By that time, period of limitation had lapsed. In view of the averments made in the application and in the light of the settled position that a party should not be denied access to justice on hyper technical grounds, delay of 182 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM is accordingly, allowed. LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -2- Main case 1. Appellants/claimants – Sangeeta Sharma, Vikesh Kumar (minor through appellant No. 1) and Vasu Sharma (minor through appellant No. 1) have filed present appeal against impugned Award dated 10.12.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short ‘Tribunal’), vide which claim petition was allowed with costs and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,24,510/- alongwith interest @6% per annum, as detailed therein. 2. Brief facts of the case are, on 28.01.2015, Rajesh Kumar @ Goldi was coming from Pathankot to Gurdaspur in car bearing Registration No. PB-06-N-0900 alongwith his brother-in-law Rajesh Kumar. He was driving the car at a normal speed on correct side of the road and at about 0.15 am, when they reached the area of Dina Nagar-Daburji byepass, the offending Truck bearing Registration No. PB-02-BV-8695 driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently hit the car from backside, as a result, it turned turtle. The front and rear portion of car was completely damaged. Victim suffered multiple serious injuries and died on the spot. Regarding this accident, FIR No. 9 dated 28.01.2015 was registered at Police Station Dina Nagar on the statement of Rajesh Kumar son of Yash Pal. At the time of accident, Rajesh Kumar @ Goldi was 40 years of age, serving in Punjab Armed Police and was posted in Vigilance Department, Pathankot. He was drawing salary of Rs. 43,713/- per month. On untimely death of deceased victim Rajesh Kumar @ Goldi, his widow and minor children filed present claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 70 lacs. LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -3- 3. Claim petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 and they filed their joint written reply, denying the accident. It was alleged that false and frivolous FIR has been lodged. Claimants have concocted a false story. Denying all the averments, it was submitted that claim petition may be dismissed. 4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company also filed written reply, taking the stand that driver of offending Truck bearing Registration No. PB-02-BV-8695 was not holding valid effective Driving License. Respondent No. 1 was driving the Truck in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy. After denying all the averments, it was submitted that claim petition may be dismissed. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 07.08.2015:- (1) Whether Rajesh Kumar @ Goldi died in an accident that took place on 19.01.2014 (wrongly written as 19.01.2014 instead of 28.01.2015) at about 0.15 am in the area of P.S. Dinanagar, due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB- 02-BV-8695 by respondent no.1? OPA (2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPA (3) Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3 (4) Relief. 6. In order to prove the claim petition, the appellant/claimant No.1 Sangeeta Sharma widow of deceased victim herself stepped into the witness box as AW-2 and deposed through duly sworn affidavit LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -4- Ex.AW2/A. She further examined ASI Rattan Masih as AW-1 and Rajesh Kumar (eye witness) as AW-3. Thereafter, learned counsel for claimants closed the evidence on behalf of claimants vide separate statement dated 03.11.2015. 7. In order to rebut the case of claimants, no oral evidence was led by respondents No.1 to 3. However, learned counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 2 after tendering into documentary evidence documents i.e. Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 closed the evidence on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 8. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, claim petition filed by claimants was allowed with costs by passing impugned Award dated 10.12.2015 and learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,24,510/- alongwith interest @6% per annum, as detailed therein. Feeling aggrieved of this Award, present appeal has been preferred by appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. 9. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellants/claimants as well as learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel representing appellants/claimants have filed present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. It is pointed out that compensation has been awarded towards lower side. The multiplier has not been correctly applied nor adequate compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads. Compensation awarded for loss of consortium, on account of loss of love LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -5- and affection for the children as well as for transportation expenses etc. is towards the lower side. Learned Tribunal has also granted interest @6% per annum which is inadequate and claimed interest @18% per annum. On these grounds, Award passed by learned Tribunal has been challenged. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3-Insurance Company pointed out that as a whole adequate compensation has been awarded to appellants/claimants which does not require any interference. Fair and equitable Award has been passed by learned Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal preferred by appellants and same deserves dismissal. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have gone through the record carefully. Main dispute is pertaining to findings given regarding issue no. 2 i.e. quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, Rajesh Kumar @ Goldi was 40 years of age and was serving as Head Constable in Punjab Armed Police and at that time, he was posted in Vigilance Department, Pathankot. Appellants/claimants examined ASI Rattan Masih as AW-1 who proved the salary of deceased victim as Rs. 43,713/- per month. Considering the age of deceased victim, he was granted 30% increase in income, as a result, his salary was taken as Rs. 56,827/- and annual income came out to be Rs. 6,81,924/-. Income Tax deduction was done and annual income was taken as Rs. 6,18,697/-. Considering the number of dependants, 1/3rd income was deducted towards personal expenditure and dependency of appellants/claimants was rightly taken as Rs. 4,12,465/-. However, at the time of applying multiplier, learned LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -6- Tribunal applied multiplier of 14, whereas, by applying the ratio of judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 8648 of 2007), decided on 15.4.2009, case titled “Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.” cited in 2009 ACJ 1298 : Law Finder Doc Id #188882, for age group from 36 years to 40 years, multiplier of 15 is applicable. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 15, amount of compensation comes out to be Rs. 61,86,975/-. 13. In the case in hand, learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for children and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, which comes out to be Rs. 1,50,000/-. Accident took place on 28.01.2015. Therefore, all the appellants/claimants are granted enhanced amount of Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of consortium, which comes out to be Rs. 1,20,000/-. They are further granted amount of Rs. 15,000/- for loss to estate and another Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenditure. Therefore, sum total again comes out to be Rs.1,50,000/-. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. 14. In the light of aforesaid factual position, compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is towards the lower side. By applying multiplier of 15, total amount of compensation comes out to be Rs.63,36,975/-, whereas, learned Tribunal had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,24,510/-. The appellants/claimants are entitled to get balance amount of Rs. 4,12,465/-. They are further entitled to recover the said amount with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-768-2017 (O&M) -7- present appeal till realization of the amount. Earlier award amount was apportioned among the appellants/claimants in equal shares. Now, the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 4,12,465/- alongwith interest be released in favour of appellant/claimant No. 1 Sangeeta Sharma, widow of deceased victim by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. 15. Resultantly, the findings given by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur while passing impugned Award dated 10.12.2015 are modified regarding quantum of compensation by accepting the present appeal. 16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. 16.07.2026 (AMARJOT BHATTI) lalit JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes/No LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document