IN TH 129 ICICI Lombard Priya PS and O CORAM: HO Present: Mr. For a Mr. R Mr. *** PARMOD GO 1. App being aggrieve Claims Tribun whereby comp respondents-cl parents of de account of unt ‘deceased’) bearing No.DL 2. Follo “1. Sath IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH ombard General Insurance Company L versus and Others : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARM Mr. Preet Harinder Singh Pannu, Ad For appellant. Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate for respon *** D GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Appellant-Insurance Company has grieved by award dated 09.07.2025 Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter re compensation of Rs.77,24,440/- has claimants. Claimants-respondent deceased Satheesh Kumar had of untimely demise of Satheesh Kuma in accident dated 02.10.2020 ca No.DL 1LAD 9772. Following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in qu Satheesh Kumar M took place on 0 -1- UNJAB & HARYANA GARH FAO-5779-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:29.10.2025 pany Ltd. ...Appellant ...Respondents ARMOD GOYAL nu, Advocate ate and respondent Nos.1 to 5. y has preferred present appeal .2025 passed by Motor Accident fter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), has been awarded in favour of ndents i.e. wife, children and r had sought compensation on Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 20 caused by offending vehicle question resulting in death on 02.10.2020 at 02:30 a.m. in SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 the a GT R rash regis by r Mini dece No.4 2. If petit 3. W valid there polic and liabl 4. Re 3. Issue No.3 was dec Rs.77,24,440/ institution of 4. App and has challe by Tribunal. L on following i. 2025 (O&M) the area of village Khanpur Kolian GT Road, Police Station Sadar Tha rash and negligent driving of the registration No.DL1L-AD-9772 by by respondent No.2 or due to rash Mini Bus bearing registration deceased Satheesh Kumar M himse No.4 or due to their contributory neg 2. If issue No.1 is proved to what a petitioners are entitle to and from wh 3. Whether respondents No.1 and th valid and effective driving licences there was violation of the terms and policies by respondent No.1 and 2 and respondent No.5. Thus, respon liable to pay any compensation to th 4. Relief.” Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in as decided against respondent No.3 ,440/- along with interest @ 7.5% p n of suit till realization was granted vi Appellant is primarily aggrieved by challenged the quantification of comp nal. Learned counsel for appellant ha grounds:- That age of deceased has been years whereas from the evi respondents, it is clearly made o -2- lian near Mahindra Agency on Thanesar (Kurukshetra) due to the offending Bolero bearing by respondent No.1 & owned rash and negligent driving of on No.PB-01A-8009 by the imself & owned by respondent y negligence?OPP at amount of compensation the m whom?OPP d the deceased were not having ces at the time of accident and and conditions of the insurance d 2 as well as by the deceased spondents No.3 and 5 are not to the petitioners? OPR-3 & 5 ed in favour of claimants. Issue No.3 and total compensation of .5% per annum from the date of nted vide impugned award. ed by quantum of compensation f compensation as has been done lant has challenged quantification s been taken wrongly to be 40 e evidence led by claimants- made out that deceased was aged SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 ii. Lear the Hon’ble S Cholamandala 2020 decided 5. On t has vehementl therefore the granted. He fu income of dec reliance upon vs. Premlal G Supreme Cour Insurance Com 2025 (O&M) 41 years 06 months at the time Tribunal has wrongly awarded 14 and has also wrongly awarde instead of 25 % as mandated by India in Sarla Verma & O Corporation & Anr.; 2009( National Insurance Co. Ltd. RCR (Civil) 1009. That Tribunal has erred in addi by deceased while determining of quantification of loss of depe in the accident. Learned counsel for appellant has pl ’ble Supreme Court of India in Vis ndalam & Anr., Special Leave Pe ded on 21.05.2025. On the other hand, learned counsel mently argued that age has been rig e the multiplier as well as future pr He further argued that family pensi of deceased for calculating loss of d upon judgments passed by this Court al Gautam and Others, 2025 (2) Court of India in Sebastiani Lakra e Company ltd. and Another, 2019 (1 -3- e time of his death and therefore, arded multiplier of 15 instead of awarded future prospects @ 40% ted by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport 009(3) RCR Civil (77) and td. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017(4) n adding pension being received ining his income for the purpose dependency on account of death has placed reliance upon order of Vishavjit Singh & Ors. Vs. e Petition (Civil) No.13442 of ounsel for claimants-respondents en rightly taken as 40 years and ure prospects have been rightly pension has to be added in the s of dependency and has placed Court in Pramod Kumar Tiwari (2) TAC 384 and by Hon’ble akra and Others vs. National 19 (17) SCC 465. SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 6. Adm proved on reco examined by c man and was service record of deceased is noted the same pay drawn ce annexed in the deceased was b not in dispute 03.10.2020. claimants-resp 7. From clearly made o 02 days on the ambiguity abo of deceased to made out fr themselves. Th and according judgments refe case keeping claimants shall on his monthly 2025 (O&M) Admittedly, in present case age o n record. The deceased was born on 3 d by claimants-respondents to prove d was receiving pension, after his r record was duly placed on record by P sed is mentioned as 30.03.1979 (thoug e same as 03.03.1979). Copy of Ex.P/1 wn certificate issued by Air Force in the present appeal and perusal of was born on 30.03.1979. Date of acc ispute. Accident had taken place on Nothing contrary was pointed o respondents to show that date of birt From these facts which stand dul ade out that deceased was aged abo on the day of his death. Therefore, i about the age of deceased and Tribu sed to be 40 years instead of 41 yea ut from date of birth relied up es. The deceased has to be treated in ordingly multiplier as well as futu ts referred above have to be awarded eping deceased to be aged more shall be entitled to multiplier of 14 a onthly income. -4- age of deceased has been duly rn on 30.03.1979. PW-2 was duly prove that deceased was ex-army his retirement from army. His rd by PW2, wherein date of birth (though the Tribunal has wrongly Ex.P/10 proved by PW-2 i.e. last orce Authorities has also been sal of Ex.P/10 goes to show that of accident in present case is also ace on intervening night of 02- nted out by learned counsel for of birth so recorded is wrong. d duly proved on record, it is d about 41 years 06 months and fore, in present case, there is no d Tribunal has erred in taking age 1 years 06 months, as is clearly ed upon claimants-respondents ated in the age group of 41 to 45 s future prospects in view of arded to the claimants in present more than 41 years, therefore, of 14 and future prospects of 25% SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 8. It is who had retir Deceased was which was Rs respondents deceased from present appeal towards the in his death. The 30.09.2020, de has rightly con skilled worker. 9. I do extent. Deceas as highly skill army and ther determined by case is whethe as pension has determining lo 10. Lear addition of inc pension canno Sebastiani La (supra). Howe 2025 (O&M) It is also not in dispute that deceas d retired on 30.09.2023 i.e. two da d was therefore entitled to receive p as Rs.38,544/-. It is also not in d would be entitled to family pen from the employer of deceased. T appeal, would be whether Tribunal had the income being received by decease h. There was no material on record t 20, deceased was further employed. tly considered monthly income of dece orker. I do not find any fault in the app eceased who was an ex-airforce man y skilled person on account of his e d therefore, his notional income as ed by Tribunal is upheld. However, th hether pension amount to Rs.38,544/ has to be added and considered a ing loss of dependency. Learned counsel for respondents of income of Rs.38,544/- on the grou cannot be made by placing reli ni Lakra and Others (supra) and However, none of the judgments relie -5- deceased was army/airforce man wo days prior to the accident. eive pension from his employer n dispute that the claimants- y pension after the death of the sed. The question, therefore in nal had rightly added Rs.38,544/- eceased as pension on the day of cord that after his retirement on loyed. Accordingly, the Tribunal f deceased equivalent to a highly he approach of Tribunal to this man, therefore, has to be treated his experience and exposure in as Rs.12,000/- per month as ver, the moot question in present 8,544/- per month being received ered as income of deceased for ndents-claimants has defended e ground that deduction of family g reliance upon judgments of and Parmod Kumar Tiwari ts relied upon by learned counsel SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 for claimants present case. It of family pen stated in judgm not in doubt. respondents ca determined by 11. The with the accide it was rightly awarded on ac pension canno dependency. T Supreme Cour under:- “The inco Hun Thou be ju no e Cou wido find asse Five 12. In a determining lo 2025 (O&M) mants-respondents have got any app case. It is not the case of deduction rath ly pension for determining loss of d judgments cited by learned counsel f doubt. Pension/family pension bein cannot be deducted from the com ed by Tribunal in a motor accident cas The family pension received by de accident and resultant death on accoun htly held not liable to be deduc on account of loss of dependency. Ho cannot be treated as income of decea ncy. The matter in this regard is not Court of India in Vishavjit Singh “The issue with regard to the re income from Rs.22,712/- (Rupees Tw Hundred Twelve) per month to Thousand Five Hundred) per month be justified. Since, the deceased was no evidence of any independent so Court has rightly held that the am widow as family pension had to be find no ground to interfere with the assessed by the High Court at Rs.6,5 Five Hundred) per month.” In a similar situation, where the fam ing loss of dependency, the Hon’ble S -6- ny applicability in the facts of rather it is the case of addition s of dependency. The principle nsel for claimants-respondents is being received by claimants- he compensation amount, if any, ent case. by deceased has got no relation account of accident and therefore deducted for the compensation However, similarly the family deceased for determining loss of is not res integra. The Hon’ble ingh & Ors. (supra) has held as e reduction of the deceased’s es Twenty Two Thousand Seven to Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six onth, upon scrutiny, appears to was a pensioner and there was nt source of income, the High amount being received by the o be deducted. Accordingly, we the income of the deceased as s.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand he family pension was added for n’ble Supreme Court of India had SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 found that fam had upheld th excluded for d family pension dependency. claimants as f income of dec determined on Rs.12,000/- tak wages taken as loss of depend 13. Acco following com Income of the Future prospec Deduction Multiplier Loss of depend Spousal con claimant No.1 Filial cons claimant Nos.2 Parental con claimant Nos.4 Loss of estate Funeral expens Compensation appeal Compensation Tribunal Difference in c 2025 (O&M) at family pension cannot be added to t eld the orders of High Court wher for determining loss of dependency ension of Rs.38,540/- cannot be add ncy. Moreover, upto 60% of pensio ts as family pension, therefore, pen of deceased. The loss of dependency ed on the basis of notional income d taking deceased to be highly skil ken as income of deceased alone has ependency. Accordingly, claimants-respondent g compensation:- of the deceased Rs.12,000/- per (as per minimum of highly skilled rospects 25% (Rs.12,000/-+Rs 1/4th (15,000-37 14 dependency 11,250 x 14 consortium to t No.1 Rs.44,000 (as awarded by consortium to t Nos.2 and 3 Rs.44,000/ (as awarded by T consortium to t Nos.4 and 5 Rs.44,000/ (as awarded by T estate Rs.16,500 (as awarded by T expenses Rs.16,500 (as awarded by T sation awarded in sation awarded by ce in compensation -7- ed to the income of deceased and t whereby family pensions was dency. In the present case also, e added for determining loss of pension would be receivable by pension cannot be treated as dency in present case has to be come determined by Tribunal @ ly skilled worker. The minimum e has to be taken for determining ondents shall be entitled to per month inimum wages killed workers) Rs.12,000/- (per month) 25% +Rs.3,000/-) Rs.15,000/- th 3750) Rs.11,250/- 14 0 x 14 x 12 Rs.18,90,000/- 44,000/- ed by Tribunal) Rs.44,000/- ,000/- x 2 ed by Tribunal) Rs.88,000/- ,000/- x 2 ed by Tribunal) Rs.88,000/- 16,500/- by Tribunal) Rs.16,500/- 16,500/- ed by Tribunal) Rs.16,500/- Rs.21,43,000/- Rs.77,24,440/- Rs.55,81,440/- SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5779-20 14. The respondents alo claim petition t 15. Appe 29.10.2025 Sunil Chander 2025 (O&M) The amount, if any due would b nts along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. fr tition till its realization as per apportionm Appeal is accordingly allowed in abov -8- ould be paid to the claimants- p.a. from the date of filing of the ortionment given in award. above terms. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE SUNIL CHANDER 2025.10.30 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document