IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 111 FAO-3189-2021 Date of Decision:08.12.2025 Dev Raj Gogia and Another …..Appellants Vs. Jugraj Khan and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Seeking enhancement, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that income of the deceased Rohit Gogia at ₹7,500/- per month has been taken on the lower side and that it should be taken at DC rates which was ₹8,000/- per month at the relevant +me. Perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal would reveal that as per the salary slips Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 for the month of March, 2018 and April, 2018, the gross salary of the deceased was ₹7,500/- per month. Meaning thereby, income of the deceased as taken by the Tribunal is as per his actual income and not on the no+onal basis. In these circumstances, there is no scope for increasing the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that compensa+on under all the conven+onal heads has been granted and that necessary addi+ons etc. have been made as per “Naonal Insurance NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3189-2021 -2- Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others” 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and “Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another”, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. There is no scope for enhancement. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE December 08, 2025 Nee+ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document