IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 108 FAO-3237-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.05.2026 Smt. Manisha and Another …..Appellants Vs. Sonu Mishra and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The claimants are in appeal seeking modifica"on of the award dated 04.10.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, limited to the aspect of quantum of compensa"on. The appeal is accompanied by an applica"on bearing No. CM-11154-CII-2023 under Sec"on 5 of the Limita"on Act, 1963, seeking condona"on of delay of 99 days in filing the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that one Amit son of Rishi Raj lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 19.05.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of a Canter bearing registra"on No. DL-1LY-0880. The claim pe""on under Sec"on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the widow, minor child and parents of the deceased seeking compensa"on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The claim pe""on was contested by the respondents. Upon apprecia"on of evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal proceeded to assess compensa"on and awarded a sum of ₹20,01,500/- along with interest, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 4. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the appellants has NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3237-2023 (O&M) contended that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is argued that the deceased was engaged in agricultural ac"vi"es on four acres of land and was also running a dairy business, earning approximately ₹15,000/- per month. 5. At the outset, it is to be no"ced that the plea regarding higher income of the deceased is not supported by any cogent or reliable evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that no documentary proof such as income records, account statements, or any other material was produced before the Tribunal to substan"ate the alleged income. Even the educa"onal qualifica"ons of the deceased were not brought on record. 6. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal was jus"fied in resor"ng to the no"onal income based on minimum wages applicable at the relevant "me. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Neeta vs. Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 (1) Law Herald (SC) 105, wherein it has been held that in absence of proof of actual income, the income is to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages. 7. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at ₹8,827/- per month, being the minimum wages no"fied by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana at the relevant "me. ThereaBer, the Tribunal has:
Added future prospects in accordance with seCled law;
Applied the mul"plier of ‘18’ considering the age of the deceased;
Deducted one-third towards personal expenses; and
Awarded compensa"on under conven"onal heads including loss of consor"um, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to demonstrate that any admissible component of compensa"on has been omiCed by the Tribunal or that the computa"on suffers from any legal infirmity. The assessment made by the Tribunal is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na%onal Insurance Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3237-2023 (O&M) Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and other binding precedents governing determina"on of compensa"on. 9. The appeal is admiCedly delayed by 99 days. No sufficient cause has been made out in the applica"on to sa"sfactorily explain the delay. The explana"on offered does not inspire confidence nor does it disclose bona fide reasons preven"ng the appellants from approaching this Court within the prescribed period of limita"on. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that:
No case is made out for enhancement of compensa"on on merits; and
The appeal is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of limita"on. 11. Even otherwise, upon independent considera"on of the maCer on merits, no interference is warranted in the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. The appeal is dismissed, both on the ground of limita"on as well as on merits. 13. All pending miscellaneous applica"ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document