[139] Pinki and o Dileep Kum Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] awarded b account of his life in years. [2] the deceas (Exhibits P ignoring th of an unsk State Gove [3] in a positi assessment IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-1526 Date of De i and others versus p Kumar and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advocate Mr. Aseem Aggaral, Advocate Insurance Company. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Claimants are in appeal, seeki ded by the learned Motor Acciden unt of death of Rakesh Kumar @ Rak ife in a motor vehicular accident da Learned counsel for the claim deceased was proved on record by ibits P-7 to P-10) in evidence. Despit ring the said documents and assessing unskilled person relying upon the Government. Learned counsel for responden position to dispute the fact that t sment year 2020-2021 (Exhibit P-10) T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1526-2024 (O&M) of Decision : 02.02.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN vocate for the appellants. vocate for respondent No.3- , seeking enhancement of compensatio ccident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, o Rakesh, son of Sube Singh, who lo dated 23.02.2021 at the age of 4 claimants submits that the income o rd by tendering Income Tax Return Despite the same, the Tribunal erred essing the salary of the deceased as th the minimum wages notified by ondent No.3-Insurance Company is n that the Income Tax Return for th 10) was tendered in evidence. The ensation ipat, on ho lost e of 49 come of Returns erred in that by the is not for the The RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.05 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1526-2024 (O&M) -2- same was filed by the deceased in his individual capacity much prior to the date of his death, i.e. on 10.08.2020. As per the same, the income of the deceased has been reflected as ₹4,74,360/- per annum. Future prospects, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 (SC), to the extent of 25% need to be added. Deduction of 1/4th , keeping in view that there are four claimants, needs to be applied. Multiplier of ‘13’ has rightly been applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of ₹48,400/- under the head of loss of consortium, whereas the same needs to be awarded individually to each of the four claimants. Accordingly, each of the claimant is held entitled to a sum of ₹48,400/- on account of loss of consortium. [4] With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal stands disposed off. The interest and apportionment shall abide by the award passed by the Tribunal. [5] Needless to say, any amount already paid shall be set off and adjusted. [6] All pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 02.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.05 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document