IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** I. FAO-1176-2018 Sonia and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Om Parkash and others . . . . Respondents **** II. FAO-1031-2019 Leelawati and Another . . . . Appellants Vs. Om Parkash and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on:17.07.2026 Pronounced on: 20.07.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Ashok K. Sharma Bhana, Advocate, for the appellants (in FAO-1176-2018). None for the appellants (in FAO-1031-2019) Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Ms. Diksha Rathi and Mr. Vivek, Advocates for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal and Mr. Hritik Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals have been preferred by different sets of claimants arising out of the same claim petition, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, vide award dated 10.03.2017. Since both the appeals arise out of a VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1176-2018 2026:PHHC:098255 FAO-1031-2019 common award and involve identical questions relating to the quantum of compensation, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, Sandeep, aged about 26 years, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident on 11.01.2016 on account of the rash and negligent driving of Verna Car bearing registration No. HR-10Z-9435. FIR No.14 dated 11.01.2016 under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat. The widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding the actual income of the deceased, his monthly income was assessed notionally at ₹6,000/-. After adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses and applying the multiplier of 17, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹16,12,000/- under various heads, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the driver, owner and insurer. 4. The finding regarding rash and negligent driving, as also the liability of the respondents to satisfy the award, has attained finality, there being no appeal by the respondents. The controversy in the present appeals is, therefore, confined to the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹6,000/- per month despite there being notified minimum wages applicable in the State of Haryana at the relevant time. It is argued that in the absence of proof of actual income, the notified minimum wages furnish the most reliable yardstick for determining notional income. It is further contended that the compensation under the conventional heads also requires to be re-determined VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1176-2018 2026:PHHC:098255 FAO-1031-2019 in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer is unable to dispute the applicability of the aforesaid principles. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the record, this Court finds merit in the appeals. 8. Since the finding of the Tribunal regarding the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has not been challenged, the same warrants no interference. Likewise, the finding fastening joint and several liability upon the respondents has also attained finality. 9. The only question requiring consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal constitutes "just compensation" within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. It is well settled that where there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the actual income of the deceased, the notified minimum wages prevailing on the date of the accident constitute a safe and reasonable basis for determining the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in assessing the monthly income at ₹6,000/- without reference to the applicable minimum wages. The notified minimum wages for an unskilled worker in the State of Haryana at the relevant time were ₹7,976.20 per month. The monthly income of the deceased is, therefore, assessed at ₹7,980/-. 11. The compensation is accordingly re-computed in the light of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra). The monthly income being ₹7,980/-, the annual income comes to ₹95,760/-. Since the deceased was below 40 years of age, an VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1176-2018 2026:PHHC:098255 FAO-1031-2019 addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made, taking the annual income to ₹1,34,064/-. After deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to ₹1,00,548/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency comes to ₹17,09,316/-. 12. The claimants are further entitled to compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly, ₹40,000/- each is awarded towards spousal, parental and filial consortium (total ₹2 Lacs), as admissible to the respective claimants, besides ₹15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is re-assessed at ₹19,39,316/-. 13. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of ₹16,12,000/-, the claimants become entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹3,27,316/- (₹19,39,316/- minus ₹16,12,000/-), together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 14. Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced compensation shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondents. The apportionment and other conditions contained in the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected appeal. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 20.07.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document