FAO-2019 IN THE HIG 215 Surinder Kau Daljinder S CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. enhancemen learned Moto Tribunal) vi bearing M Section 163 ‘the Act’). Sardool Sing 2. died in a mo driving moto respondent N Insurance C before it, t 19-2009 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA FAO Date o er Kaur Versus Singh and another M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate f Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for res I GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed cement of compensation amount of d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, A al) vide impugned Award dated 04 g M.A.C. Case No. 106 of 2008 d 3-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 . The sole claimant is the 45- Singh, who was 22 years old at the t Brief facts of the case are that n a motor vehicular accident that too motorcycle bearing Registration N dent No. 1-Daljinder Singh; and in nce Company. Upon appraisal of ple , the learned Tribunal had con D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2019-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 .…Appellant ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ocate for the appellant. for respondent No. 2-Insurance Co. filed by the sole claimant seeking nt of ₹1,58,400/- awarded by the Amritsar (for short-‘the learned 04.03.2009, passed in petition 008 dated 20.09.2008, filed under Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as -year-old mother of deceased- at the time of accident. e that deceased-Sardool Singh, had at took place on 30.10.2007 while tion No. PB-63-B-0748; owned by and insured by respondent No. 2- of pleadings and evidence adduced d concluded that Sardool Singh, king the rned ition nder o as had hile ced ngh, RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2019 deceased, di motor vehicu compensatio of filing the were held lia 3. compensatio lower side a Wages Notif month. It is of accident, Tribunal has towards futu love and affe present appe modified and to ₹15,00,00 4. Company op claimant and in question Tribunal as t was authoriz 5. appellant th 19-2009 (O&M) -2- ed, died as a result of use of motorcy vehicular accident. Accordingly, the l nsation as above along with interest @ ng the claim petition till actual reali eld liable to pay the compensation join Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that income of side as ₹2400/- per month; whereas s Notification, the same should have . It is further submitted that deceased ident, therefore, multiplier of 20 ought al has applied multiplier of 11. Moreo s future prospects; even nothing has nd affection, funeral expenses etc. Acc t appeal may be allowed; and the ied and the amount of compensation b ,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% p Per Contra, learned counsel fo any opposes the submissions advance and points out that deceased was th stion. It is submitted that no finding h al as to whether the deceased possess thorized to drive the offending motorc Learned counsel further points ant that an un-identified tractor trol otorcycle No. PB-63-B-0748 in this y, the learned Tribunal had awarded rest @ 7% per annum from the date l realization. Both the respondents ion jointly and severally. e appellant seeks enhancement of me of the deceased has taken on the ereas as per the relevant Minimum have been assessed as ₹5000/- per ceased was 22 years old at the time ought to have been applied. But the Moreover, nothing has been granted g has been granted towards loss of Accordingly, it is prayed that the d the Award dated 04.03.2009 be ation be enhanced from ₹1,58,400/- 15% per annum. sel for respondent No. 2-Insurance dvanced on behalf of the appellant- was the borrower of the motorcycle ding has been given by the learned ossessed a valid driving licence and motorcycle at the time of accident. points out that it is the case of the or trolley came from the opposite this rded date ents t of the um per time the nted s of t the be ance rned and the site RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2019 direction on in question of which ground and at the spot. No. 160 dat Police Statio filed by the trolley. It is herein is no No. 2-Insura 6. I have heard detail. I find respondent N 7. the claimant deceased-Sa the case of the opposite wrong side o Singh and, Sukhdev Sin Sardool Sing accident at t 19-2009 (O&M) -3- on on the wrong side of the road and stion which was being driven by decea Sardool Singh and pillion rider d and received serious injuries to whi spot. It is pointed out that qua the sa 60 dated 31.10.2007 under Sections 3 Station Chheharta, was registered. Ho by the claimant against the driver an . It is contended that the claim pet is not maintainable. Accordingly, le Insurance Company, prays for dismiss No other argument is raised on heard learned counsel for the parties I find merit in the submissions adva dent No. 2-Insurance Company. Perusal of the record shows th aimant before the learned Tribunal Sardool Singh was driving the m se of the appellant that an un-identif posite direction and the driver thereo side of the road and struck the same a and, consequentially, accident occurre ev Singh fell from the motor cycle, ol Singh succumbed to his injuries rec at the spot. Driver of the tractor tr d and struck against the motorcycle deceased-Sardool Singh, as a result rider-Sukhdev Singh fell on the to which Sardool Singh succumbed the said accident even though FIR ons 304-A, 337, 279, 427 IPC at . However, no claim petition was iver and owner of the said tractor m petition against the respondents gly, learned counsel for respondent ismissal of the present appeal. ed on behalf of either of the parties. parties and perused the case file in advanced by learned counsel for ws that it was the pleaded case of unal that at the time of accident, the motorcycle in question. It was identified tractor-trolley came from thereof took the tractor trolley on same against motorcycle of Sardool ccurred and both Sardool Singh and , and received serious injuries. ies received in this motor vehicular ctor trolley fled. Thus, it was a hit sult the bed FIR C at was ctor s dent le in l for e of ent, was rom on dool and ular a hit RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2019 and run case 304-A, 337, by Gian Sin bearing No. who was pil Singh is the that decease question. No prove that d However, as of the Act motorcycle i deceased ha motorcycle i 8. learned Trib annum. How to prove her of the decea contention o deceased ou with the rele has failed to has correctly 19-2009 (O&M) -4- n case. However, FIR No. 160 dated , 337, 279, 427 IPC, was got registere an Singh, who was following the dec g No. PB-02-Temp. 3369 along with as pillion rider on his motorcycle. Th is the owner of motorcycle in question eceased-Sardool Singh was the bor Nothing has also been brought o that deceased was authorized to driv ver, as the present claim petition has b Act, the claimant was only requir cycle in question .From the above, th had died due to the injuries recei cycle in question. Further, it was the pleaded cas d Tribunal that deceased was a labou . However, the appellant had failed to ve her said contention. Accordingly, T deceased as that of a manual workma tion of learned counsel for the appella ed ought to have been taken as ₹500 relevant Minimum Wages Notificat iled to produce any such Notification rrectly assessed the income of the dece 0 dated 31.10.2007, under Sections gistered in Police Station Chheharta, he deceased on his own motorcycle g with his relative, Rajesh Kumar, The respondent No. 1 Daljinder uestion. Thus, it is proved on record e borrower of the motorcycle in ught on record by the claimant to o drive the motorcycle in question. has been filed under Section 163-A required to prove the use of the ove, this fact is established that the s received by him, while using the ed case of the appellant before the labourer and earning ₹40,000/- per iled to bring on record any evidence ngly, Tribunal had taken the income orkman as ₹2400/- per month. The ppellant that monthly income of the 5000/- per month in conformity otification is baseless as, ld. counsel ation. Accordingly, the ld. Tribunal e deceased as ₹2400/- per month. ions arta, ycle mar, nder cord e in t to tion. A the t the the the per ence ome The the mity nsel unal RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2019 9. accident, th deducted, th Tribunal had law prevailin to the claim been filed for the appel this backgro compensatio 10. no case is m The appeal i 11. 26.02.2026 rishu 19-2009 (O&M) -5- Undisputedly, the deceased w nt, therefore, 50% towards persona ted, thereby calculating the monthly d al had further applied the multiplier evailing at that time, thereby calculati claimant as ₹1,58,400/- (1200x12x1 under Section 163-A of the Act, appellant for grant of future prospect ackground, the Tribunal has rightly nsation of ₹1,58,400/-. Keeping in view the entirety of e is made out that merits interferenc peal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable sed was bachelor at the time of ersonal expenses has rightly been thly dependency to be ₹1200/-. The tiplier of 11 in accordance with the lculating the compensation payable x12x11). As the claim petition has Act, contention of learned counsel ospects is meritless and rejected. In ghtly held the appellant entitled to of the facts noted above, I find ference with the impugned Award. any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No e of een The the able has nsel In d to find ard. RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.