FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 146 FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.07.2026 Ram Parkash and others ....Appellants Vs. Harchand Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. The present  appeal has been filed by claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,05,972/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”) vide award dated 17.01.2022 passed in MACP case No. 29 of 2021, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘1988 Act’). The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased. 2. Briefly, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act before the learned Tribunal on account of motor vehicular accident wherein, Smt. Sukh Devi had expired. In the claim petition, it was averred that Smt. Sukh Devi (since deceased) was working in Blow Room Department in M/s Sportking India Limited. ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -2- 2.1 It was stated that on 12.04.2020, Smt. Sukh Devi suffered an injury on her hand while working on a machine and Dr. Gagandeep Sharma was taking her along with other patients/labourers of the aforesaid unit to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot, in Omni Ambulance bearing registration No.PB-03AK-6899, which was being driven by Harchand Singh (respondent No.1) at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It was further stated that the said Ambulance was also not maintained properly by its owner (respondent No.2). 2.2 It was averred in the claim petition that when the Ambulance reached near Village Sandhwan on main highway from Kotkapura to Faridkot, at about 09.15 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 (Harchand Singh) and also on account of poorly maintained vehicle, the front right side tyre of the Ambulance got burst and the same overturned, whereupon Smt. Sukh Devi sustained multiple injuries on her person and during treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on 14.04.2020. Thereafter the post-mortem was conducted. 2.3 The claimants further averred that Smt. Sukh Devi (since deceased) was 49 years of age at the time of her death and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. 2.4 In the aforementioned circumstances, compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- was sought. 3. Respondent No.1 (Harchand Singh) and respondent No.2 (M/s Sportking India Limited) being the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, opposed the claim by submitting that the accident had not occurred due to negligence of the respondent No.1 (Harchand Singh) and ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -3- even no FIR was lodged. It was further averred that respondent No.1 (Harchand Singh) holds a valid driving license and the vehicle was duly insured by New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No.3 herein) for the period from 26.09.2019 to 25.09.2020. 3.1 On the other hand, Insurance Company (respondent No.3) also resisted the claim, inter alia, on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid license, registration certificate, fitness certificate and that the deceased was not a third party; accordingly, prayer for dismissal of claim petition was made. 4. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether Sukh Devi wife of Ram Parkash died due to accident caused by respondent Harchand Singh on 12.4.2020, while driving Omni Ambulance No.PB-03АК-6899 rashly and negligently ?OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim any compensation. If so, to what extent and from whom?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 alleged driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid & effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident in question?OPR-3 4. Whether respondent No.2 alleged owner of offending vehicle was not holding a valid registration certificate, Fitness Certificate, permit and insurance of the vehicle, at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3. 5. Relief.” 5 Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -4- 6. The learned Tribunal, under issue No.1 returned a finding that Smt. Sukh Devi (since deceased) had sustained injuries in the motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambulance being driven by respondent No.1 (Harchand Singh). 6.1 Further the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,93,972/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 7. By way of present appeal, the claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed and the compensation awarded is on the lower side. 8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paperbook with his able assistance. 10. While assessing the income, the learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased (Smt. Sukh Devi) as 49 years (as on the date of accident i.e. 12.04.2020), on the basis of her date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card (Ex. R-1) as 01.01.1971 and also considering that the year of date of birth of deceased Smt. Sukh Devi is mentioned in the claim petition as 1971. 10.1 Further, the learned Tribunal has taken the total earnings of the deceased Smt. Sukh Devi as Rs.9,884/- on the basis of salary record (Ex.C-3) produced by Sh. Manoj Kumar Pundir, HR Manager of M/s Sportking Industries, who was examined as CW-2. 10.2 Further, the learned Tribunal held that the present appellant No.1 (Ram Parkash) being husband of the deceased and proforma ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -5- respondent No.4 (Jyoti) herein being the married daughter of deceased, were not dependant upon the deceased Smt. Sukh Devi at the time of her death and as such they were entitled to receive only consortium. The learned Tribunal has further added 25% of the established income of the deceased towards the future prospects, accordingly, monthly income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.12,355. Since, the learned Tribunal found appellants No.2 and 3 as dependent on the deceased (Smt. Sukh Devi), accordingly the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased were taken as 1/3rd (by relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another”, 2013, (9), SCC, 65). In this manner, the learned Tribunal, determined the annual dependency of the appellants No.2 and 3 as Rs.98,844/-. 10.3 Further, placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, keeping in view the age of deceased as 49 years, the multiplier of 13 has been applied. Under the non-pecuniary heads, the learned Tribunal below has awarded Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.16,500/- towards loss of her estate and Rs.1,76,000/- to the present appellants along with respondent No.4 herein, towards loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each). In this manner, the learned Tribunal has granted the following relief:- “44. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim petition is partly accepted with costs. The claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.14,93,972/-(Rs.Fourteen lakhs ninety three thousand nine hundred and seventy two only) under the different heads along with interest at the rate of ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -6- 7 ½% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization, to be paid by respondents jointly and severally, as under:- Amount of compensation towards dependency, to claimants No.2 & 3. Rs.12,84,972/- Amount of Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Compensation towards Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Compensation towards Consortium, to each claimant and resp.No.4. Rs.1,76,000/-(Rs.44,000/- each to claimants No.1 to 3 & resp.No.4) Total amount of compensation Rs.14,93,972/- (Rs. Fourteen lakhs ninety three thousand nine hundred and seventy two only) ________ 45. Out of the aforesaid total amount of compensation, an amount of Rs.44,000/- each, awarded on account of consortium, shall go to claimant No.1 Ram Parkash and respondent No.4 Jyoti, whereas the remaining amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.14,05,972/-{Rs.12,84,972/-(compensation on account of dependency) + Rs.16,500/-(amount of funeral expenses) + Rs.16,500/-(compensation towards loss of estate) + Rs.88,000/- (remaining compensation towards consortium), shall go to claimants No.2 & 3, namely Aman Shankhwar and Ankit Kumar, being dependent sons of deceased, in equal shares. The amount qua the share of minor claimant, namely Ankit Kumar (claimant No.3) shall be deposited in a fixed account in the name of the minor with a nationalized Bank of the choice of the claimants, under the guardianship of his father Ram Parkash(claimant No.1) till he attains majority. It is, however, made clear that the Bank may take the documents regarding the age of the minor, as required at the time of depositing the share of the minor in the Bank and the minor shall not be asked to bring fresh order from this Tribunal, to get the payment of the amount deposited in his name, after the date of attaining majority. This direction has been issued to save the claimant ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO-5268-2022 (O&M) -7- from the un-necessary harassment, caused due to the directions, the Bank usually give to bring the order of the Tribunal to get the payment, even after attaining the age of majority.” 11. I have gone through the findings returned by the learned Tribunal and in my considered view, the same are based upon evidence available on record and also in consonance with the settled law, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed. 13. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 29.07.2026 JUDGE Ankit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ANKIT 2026.07.31 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh