FAO-4293-2023 (O&M)




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4293-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Smt. Bimla and others ...Appellants Versus Manohar Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Ketan An,l, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-14190-CII-2023 


 
 
 



 
 
   

 


 



 
 


  

  


 

 
 !

 


 



 

  

  On account of unfortunate death of Ravinder Sharma in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 25.10.2019, his mother, minor son and brother filed a claim pe,,on under Sec,on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensa,on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. It is informed by learned counsel that immediately a9er the death of Ravinder Sharma, his wife Smt. Ranjeeta Bharte had le9 home, handing over the custody of the minor son to the other claimants and giving an affidavit Ex.P-11 to the effect that she will not claim any compensa,on arising out of the death of her husband Ravinder Sharma, nor she will claim any property le9 behind by the deceased. 3. Assailing the award, it is contended by learned counsel that deceased was a plumber and therefore, his income of ₹9024/- per month taken by the Tribunal on the no,onal basis is much on the lower side. It is also the conten,on of learned counsel that though compensa,on under the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.18 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-4293-2023 (O&M)



"
head of loss of consor,um has been allowed to the mother and minor son of the deceased, but not to the brother. 4. As far as, the conten,on regarding income of the deceased is concerned, it is without any merit. Though, it was contended that deceased was a plumber, but learned counsel concedes the fact that there is no proof either of the technical or the educa,onal qualifica,on of the deceased. It is also conceded by learned counsel that except for the statement of the claimant and other family members, no independent witness has been examined to prove that deceased was working as a plumber. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the income of ₹9024/- per month on no,onal basis taken by the learned Tribunal as per the minimum wages of the relevant ,me, cannot be considered to be inadequate. 6. However, as far as the compensa,on under the head of consor,um to brother is concerned, to that extent that there is merit in the appeal. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon Param Pal Sharda and others Vs. Dhani Ram and others 2022 AIR Supreme Court 4620, wherein compensa,on under the loss of consor,um was also granted to the brother and sister. 7. As such, it is held that over and above the amount as awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants shall also be en,tled to an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of consor,um to brother – claimant namely Rakesh. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain as it is. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 8. Since, the appeal is being disposed of without issuing any no,ce to respondent No.3 – Insurance Company, having regard to the small enhancement being allowed by this Court, therefore, the said insurance company will be at liberty to approach this Court, in case, it feels aggrieved. 18.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.18 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document