IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 Reliance General Insurance Limited Sushila Devi CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar whereby the claim petition No.MACP/108 of 2021 filed u Act by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 compensation of Rs.48,10,000/ 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the decea suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on at about 9:15 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of pick registration No.RJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reliance General Insurance Limited Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate Mr. Ruby Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. *** GUPTA, J. The insurance company is in appeal against the Award dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar whereby the claim petition No.MACP/108 of 2021 filed u Act by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 compensation of Rs.48,10,000/- has been granted to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased Mukesh Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on at about 9:15 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of pick registration No.RJ-10-GB-0901 (hereinafter referred to as “t IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-92-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 20.03.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate Mr. Ruby Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. The insurance company is in appeal against the Award dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar whereby the claim petition No.MACP/108 of 2021 filed u/S 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 herein, has been allowed; and has been granted to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it sed Mukesh Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.02.2021 at about 9:15 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of pick-up bearing 0901 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending 4 The insurance company is in appeal against the Award dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar whereby S 166 of the Motor Vehicles herein, has been allowed; and Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it sed Mukesh Kumar had died due to the injuries 08.02.2021 up bearing he offending SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vehicle”) by respondent No.7. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.8 and insured by the appellant. The 6 claimants are the widow, 3 minor children 3. appellant/Insurance Company in assailing the impugned Award is that the income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as Rs.30,000/ per month. It is submitted that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove the income of the de assessed on the higher side. Award be modified and assessed notional income of the deceased be reduced. 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. appellant. It was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that age. It was further pleaded that business of car rental service and was earning Rs.40,000/ support, the claimants had produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the relevant years (Ex.P2 to Ex.P10). To prove the said returns, the claimants had also examined Pardeep Kumar, Office Superintendent, vehicle”) by respondent No.7. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.8 and insured by the appellant. The 6 claimants are the 3 minor children, and parents of the The only argument made by learned co appellant/Insurance Company in assailing the impugned Award is that the income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as Rs.30,000/ per month. It is submitted that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Thus, notional income has been assessed on the higher side. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and assessed notional income of the deceased be No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant. It was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that at the time of accidentthe deceased . It was further pleaded thatprior to his death, the deceased was doing business of car rental service and was earning Rs.40,000/ support, the claimants had produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the relevant years (Ex.P2 to Ex.P10). To prove the said returns, the claimants had also examined Pardeep Kumar, Office Superintendent, vehicle”) by respondent No.7. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.8 and insured by the appellant. The 6 claimants are the the deceased Mukesh Kumar. The only argument made by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in assailing the impugned Award is that the income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side as Rs.30,000/- per month. It is submitted that no evidence was led by the claimants to Thus, notional income has been It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and assessed notional income of the deceased be No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and I find no merit in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant. It was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned the deceased was about 41 years of prior to his death, the deceased was doing business of car rental service and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. In support, the claimants had produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the relevant years (Ex.P2 to Ex.P10). To prove the said returns, the claimants had also examined Pardeep Kumar, Office Superintendent, 4 vehicle”) by respondent No.7. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.8 and insured by the appellant. The 6 claimants are the unsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in assailing the impugned Award is that the - per month. It is submitted that no evidence was led by the claimants to Thus, notional income has been It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and assessed notional income of the deceased be and I find no merit in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant. It was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned was about 41 years of prior to his death, the deceased was doing In support, the claimants had produced Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the relevant years (Ex.P2 to Ex.P10). To prove the said returns, the claimants had also examined Pardeep Kumar, Office Superintendent, SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Income Tax Office, Hisar as PW3. On the basis of said evidence, the l Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased such, there is no error in the income as assessed by the ld. Tribunal. 7. at the time of death, the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 25% towards future prospects which is in accordance with law Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Company Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174. the claimants were 6 in number, the l of 1/4th towards personal expenses age, multiplier of 14 was granted Rs.25,000/ No.1/widow of the deceased; and Rs.20,000/ Thus, the Tribunal granted following manner: Income 1/4th deduction Multiplier of 14 Loss of estate Loss of consortium to claimant No.1/widow Funeral expenses Total Income Tax Office, Hisar as PW3. On the basis of said evidence, the l Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased such, there is no error in the income as assessed by the ld. Tribunal. Further, as the age of the deceased was about 42 years at the time of death, the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 25% towards future prospects which is in accordance with law Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174. the claimants were 6 in number, the ld. Tribunal correctly made a deduction towards personal expenses. As the deceased was about 42 years of age, multiplier of 14 was also correctly ap granted Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.40,000/ No.1/widow of the deceased; and Rs.20,000/ Thus, the Tribunal granted total compensation following manner:- Heads Rs.37,500/ deduction Rs.37,500/ month Multiplier of 14 Rs.28,125/ Loss of estate Rs.25,000/ Loss of consortium to claimant Rs.40,000/ Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/ Rs.48,10,000/ Income Tax Office, Hisar as PW3. On the basis of said evidence, the ld. Tribunal had assessed income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month. As such, there is no error in the income as assessed by the ld. Tribunal. age of the deceased was about 42 years at the time of death, the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 25% towards future prospects which is in accordance with law laid down by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Ltd. VS. Pranay Sethi & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 918174. As Tribunal correctly made a deduction . As the deceased was about 42 years of also correctly applied. The ld. Tribunal further for loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- as consortium to claimant No.1/widow of the deceased; and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses. compensation of Rs. 48,10,000/- in Calculations Rs.37,500/- per month Rs.37,500/- - Rs.9,375/- = Rs.28,125/- per Rs.28,125/- x 14 x 12 = Rs.47,25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.48,10,000/- 4 d. As age of the deceased was about 42 years at the time of death, the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 25% down by “National Insurance As Tribunal correctly made a deduction . As the deceased was about 42 years of Tribunal further as consortium to claimant towards funeral expenses. in per SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. the impugned 9. 20.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: In view of the facts noticed above, I the impugned Award. The present appeal is hereby Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No view of the facts noticed above, I find no infirmity in hereby dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 find no infirmity in SUNENA 2025.03.24 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document