FAO-2166-2023 IN T 106 (2 cases) Nirmla Devi Malkit @ Malkiy 2. FAO Nirmla Devi and Malkit @ Malkiy CORAM: HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. for t **** AMARINDER S 1. This same appellants Motor Accident Tribunal”) on the on account of the Sharvan Kumar a minor son, Muke For the sake of c titled as ‘Smt. Ni 2. Lear common award d 23 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA Versus Malkiyat and others FAO No.2311 of 2023 (O&M) and others Versus Malkiyat and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARIN Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent No.3-Insurance C **** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL This order shall dispose of above m llants challenging the award dated 1 cident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad on the ground of quantum, whereby t of the death of husband of appellant umar and a sum of ₹3,00,000/- was gra , Mukesh Kumar, who died in a motor e of convenience, the facts are being t. Nirmla Devi Vs. Malkit @ Malkiy Learned counsel for the appella ward dated 14.02.2023 passed by the PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH FAO-2166-2023(O&M) Date of Decision:05.02.2026 …Appellant …Respondents …Appellants …Respondents ARINDER SINGH GREWAL ance Company. RAL) bove mentioned two appeals filed by ated 14.02.2023 passed by the lear habad (hereinafter referred to as “ ereby a sum of ₹23,42,400/- was gran ellant No.1 namely Sharawan Kumar as granted on account of the death of motor vehicular accident on 21.05.20 being taken from FAO No.2166 of alkiyat and Others.’ ppellants contends that the impugn by the learned Tribunal is unjust, ille
.2026 ents ents ed by the e learned as “the s granted Kumar @ ath of her .05.2020. 6 of 2023 impugned st, illegal FAO-2166-2023 and arbitrary, as claim petitions ar the rash and negl No.HR-62A-649 respondent No.1, the deceased, res Mukesh Kumar. consortium to th Hon’ble Supreme others, 2018 (4) Somwati and ot Sharawan Kumar monthly income and therefore, at applied an incor conventional hea aged 11 years, th lump sum compe equated with a n worker are requi law laid down by 2025 INSC 124 Deepak Kumar Tribunal also com the appellants we 23 (O&M) -2-

ry, as it has awarded a meager comp ions arise out of the same accident date d negligent driving of the offending B 6498 (hereinafter referred to as t No.1, who came on the wrong side of ed, resulting in the death of Sharawa umar. Furthermore, the learned Tri to the parents of the deceased in te upreme Court in Magma General Ins (4) RCR (civil) 333 and reiterated i d others, 2020 (9) SCC 644. Add Kumar aged 37 years, the learned Tri come @Rs.13,050/- per month where ore, at least his income ought to have incorrect multiplier and granted in al heads. Subsequently, in the case o ars, the learned Tribunal has committe compensation, ignoring the settled prin ith a non-earning person and that mini required to be adopted along with m wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1244 and judgment rendered by mar and others 2025 PHHC 15 lso committed an error in not awardin nts were legally entitled to higher int compensation despite the fact that b nt dated 21.05.2020, caused solely due ding Bolero Pick-Up bearing registrat o as the offending vehicle) driven de of the road and hit the motorcycle arawan Kumar as well as his minor d Tribunal erred in not granting fi d in terms of the law laid down by l Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram a rated in New India Assurance Co. Ltd . Additionally, in the case of death ed Tribunal has erroneously assessed whereas he was a Mason by profess have been taken Rs.15,000/- per mon ted inadequate compensation under case of death of minor Mukesh Kum mmitted a patent illegality by awardin ed principle that a minor victim cannot t minimum wages applicable to a skil ith multiplier and future prospects as urt in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sin d by this Court in Rakesh Kumar 155673. Consequently, the learn warding adequate rate of interest, thou her interest from the date of filing of
that both ely due to gistration riven by orcycle of inor son ting filial n by the am and . Ltd. v. death of sessed his rofession er month, under the h Kumar warding a cannot be a skilled ects as of Sinha, ar Vs. e learned st, though ing of the FAO-2166-2023 claim petitions ti learned Tribunal interference by t connected appeal 3. Per passed by the le and that the findi available before made out for inte 4. I ha with their able as 5. The intended to prov accidents and th amounts but to e present case, for learned Tribunal case of death of Learned counsel the Hon’ble Sup 1244, wherein it earning person an minimum wages and application o 23 (O&M) -3-

ions till realization. Lastly, it is submi ibunal is contrary to law and evidenc e by this Hon’ble Court for enhance appeals by passing a common order. Per contra, learned counsel for resp the learned Tribunal does not suffer e findings recorded therein are well- efore the learned Tribunal. It is accor or interference in appeal. I have heard learned counsel for th able assistance. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a o provide just, fair and reasonable c and their families. The objective of ut to ensure restitution, to the extent p for the death of minor Mukesh ibunal awarded a lump-sum compensa ath of a school going child, notional unsel for the appellants has rightly pl le Supreme Court in Karuna Parma rein it has been held that a minor vic rson and that the income of such a vict wages applicable to a skilled worker ation of the appropriate multiplier. Sim submitted that the entire approach of vidence on record, thereby necessitat hancement of compensation in both rder. r respondent No.3 submits that the aw suffer from any irregularity or infirm -reasoned on the basis of the mate accordingly contended that no ground for the parties and examined the reco is a beneficial and welfare legislat able compensation to victims of mo ve of the statute is not to award to tent possible, for the loss suffered. In kesh Kumar, aged about 11 years, pensation of ₹3,00,000/- whereas in tional income ought to have been tak htly placed reliance upon the judgmen armar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 IN or victim cannot be equated with a n a victim must be assessed on the basis orker, with addition of future prospe er. Similar principles have been reitera
ach of the essitating both the the award infirmity, e material ground is e record, egislation of motor ard token ed. In the years, the eas in the en taken. gment of 5 INSC ith a non- e basis of prospects reiterated FAO-2166-2023 by this Court in 155673. 6. The the deceased min District Hisar o Haryana as on th skilled worker at income of the d personal and liv ₹52,788/-. Furth dependency as m National Insura Smt. Sarla Verm to ₹73,903/-. A judgments, the t thereto, the clai towards funeral @10% every thre Pranay Sethi’s case of death of ₹3,00,000/- awar 7. In about 37 years, i deems it appropr which results in a 23 (O&M) -4-

ourt in Rakesh Kumar v. Deepak Therefore, this Court deems it app ed minor on the basis of minimum wa isar on 21.05.2020, the minimum w s on the said date are required to be a rker at the relevant time were ₹8798/ the deceased is assessed at ₹1,05,57 nd living expenses, the annual con Further, adding 40% towards futu y as mandated by law laid down b surance Company Limited v. Pran erma v. Delhi Transport Corporati . Applying the multiplier of 18 , the total loss of dependency is ass e claimant is entitled to ₹18,150/- neral expenses and ₹48,400/- towards ry three years as per the law laid dow i’s case (supra)). Consequently, the ath of minor Mukesh Kumar is reas awarded by the learned Tribunal. so far as the claim of compens ears, is concerned, he was working as ppropriate to take the income of the d lts in an annual income of ₹1,80,000/ ak Kumar and others, 2025 PHH it appropriate to reassess the income um wages. Since the accident occurred um wages applicable in the State o be adopted. The minimum wages /- per month. Accordingly, the ann ,05,576/-. After deducting 50% towa al contribution to the family comes s future prospects, the annual loss own by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 oration 2009 (6) SCC 121, it works of 18, keeping in view the afores is assessed at ₹13,30,254/-. In addit - towards loss of estate, ₹18,15 owards filial consortium (with escalat d down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour ly, the total compensation payable in is reassessed at ₹14,14,954/-, as aga mpensation qua Sharawan Kumar, ag ing as a Mason and therefore, this Co f the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per mon ,000/-, out of which, after deducting o
5 PHHC ncome of curred in State of for a he annual towards comes to l loss of Court in 680 and works out aforesaid addition 150/- escalation Court in ble in the s against ar, aged this Court er month, cting one- FAO-2166-2023 fourth towards p adding 40% tow ₹1,89,000/-. Ho multiplier and g particularly filial the loss of depen are entitled to ₹1,93,600/- (48,4 @10% every thre Pranay Sethi’s reassessed at ₹32 The impugned aw 8. The awarded by the l the date of filing No.3 to the appel 9. In v the learned Trib extent. 10. Pend February 05, 20 Pankaj* 23 (O&M) -5-

ards personal expenses, the annual de towards future prospects, the annua . However, the learned Tribunal and granted inadequate compensatio y filial consortium as per the law. Ap dependency is assessed at ₹30,24,000/ d to ₹18,150/- each towards loss of (48,400x4) towards filial consortium ry three years as per the law laid dow hi’s case (supra)). Consequently, t ₹32,53,900/- as against ₹23,42,400 ned award, therefore, warrants interfer The enhanced compensation, i.e. o y the learned Tribunal, shall also carry filing of the claim petition till its rea appellants-claimants in equal ratios. In view of the aforesaid facts and c d Tribunal is modified and the prese Pending application(s), if any, shall (AMARIN 05, 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable dependency comes to ₹1,35,000/ annual loss of dependency works ou bunal failed to apply the appropri ensation under the conventional hea w. Applying the correct multiplier of 4,000/-. In addition thereto, the claima oss of estate and funeral expenses ortium payable to the parents (escalat d down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour ntly, the total compensation payable 2,400/- awarded by the learned Tribun nterference to the aforesaid extent. , i.e. over and above the compensat o carry interest @ 7.5% per annum its realization, payable by the respond atios. and circumstances, the award passed present appeal is allowed to the abo , shall also stand disposed of. ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No
,000/. On rks out to propriate al heads, ier of 16, claimants nses and escalation Court in ayable is Tribunal. pensation from espondent passed by the above