FAO-3369-2021 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3369-2021 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Sukhwinder Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus Malkit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Arvind Rajo,a, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appearance has been made on behalf of the respondent– Insurance Company. 2. Arguments heard. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensa,on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on account of the death of Malkit Singh in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 23.12.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The claimants are the widow and two children of the deceased. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal assessed compensa,on at ₹12,90,000/- along with interest, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving has a?ained finality and is not under challenge. The grievance in the present appeal is confined to the quantum of compensa,on. Firstly, it is contended YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3369-2021 [2] that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as a mason and earning about ₹20,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at only ₹9,000/-. Secondly, it is argued that compensa,on under the conven,onal head of loss of consor,um has been awarded only to the widow, whereas the two children are also en,tled to filial consor,um in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent– Insurance Company submits that no documentary or oral evidence whatsoever was adduced before the Tribunal to establish either the voca,on of the deceased as a mason or his alleged monthly income of ₹20,000/-. It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal rightly assessed the income on a no,onal basis keeping in view the prevailing minimum wages. However, learned counsel fairly does not dispute the legal proposi,on that the children of the deceased would also be en,tled to compensa,on under the head of filial consor,um in accordance with the se?led law. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the first conten,on advanced on behalf of the appellants regarding enhancement of the income of the deceased. 7. It is well se?led that although proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not to be applied with rigidity, the claimant is nevertheless required to place some reliable material on record to establish the occupa,on and income of the deceased. Mere asser,on in the claim pe,,on or oral submissions, unsupported by any independent evidence, cannot form the sole basis for accep,ng a substan,ally higher income. 8. In the present case, except for the bald asser,on that the deceased was working as a mason earning ₹20,000/- per month, no YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3369-2021 [3] documentary evidence or independent witness has been produced. Admi?edly, no contractor, employer, co-worker or any person acquainted with the voca,on of the deceased was examined to substan,ate the said claim. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly resorted to assessment of income on the basis of the prevailing minimum wages. 9. The record further reveals that at the relevant ,me, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer were approximately ₹8,000/- per month, whereas those payable to a semi-skilled worker were around ₹8,800/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹9,000/-, which is marginally higher than the prevailing minimum wages. Such assessment cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record so as to warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdic,on. Accordingly, no case for enhancement of the income of the deceased is made out. 10. However, the second conten,on deserves acceptance. The learned Tribunal has awarded consor,um only to the widow of the deceased. The law on this issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors (2018) 18 SCC 130, has authorita,vely held that consor,um is not confined to spousal consor,um alone. The Court recognized dis,nct categories of consor,um, namely spousal consor,um, parental consor,um and filial consor,um, and held that the children of a deceased parent are independently en,tled to compensa,on under the head of parental consor,um. 11. Since claimants No.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased, they are each en,tled to compensa,on of ₹44,000/- under the head of parental consor,um. Consequently, the compensa,on awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by a sum of ₹88,000/-. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3369-2021 [4] 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensa,on awarded by the learned Tribunal stands enhanced by ₹88,000/- (₹44,000/- each in favour of claimants No.2 and 3 towards parental consor um). The enhanced amount shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe,,on ,ll its actual realiza,on. The remaining terms and condi,ons of the award shall remain unaltered. 13. Disposed of accordingly. 03.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document