IN THE HI 261 Smt. Parkasho Mahender & O CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, for modificatio Claims Tribuna in MACP-300 1988 (hereina appellants ma petition before 2. the basis of p deceased-Raj vehicular acc negligent dr E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA asho Devi & Others Vs. r & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Yajat Gill, Advocate Mr. Mehnaz Preet Singh Ch for the appellants. Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocat Mr. Rajnesh Malhotra, Adv for respondent No.3. *** PTA, J. Prayer in the present app cation of the Award dated 15.11.201 bunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred t 300-2017 filed under Section 166 reinafter referred to as “the Act may kindly be granted compensati efore the learned Tribunal on accoun Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduce Raj Singh had died due to injuries accident that took place on 17 driving of truck bearing re D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1709-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA h Chahal, Advocate ocate Advocate appeal filed by the claimants is .2019 passed by Motor Accident red to as “the learned Tribunal”) 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act”) to the extent that the sation as prayed for in the claim count of death of Raj Singh. are that the learned Tribunal on duced before it concluded that ries suffered by him in a motor 17.05.2017 due to rash and registration No.HR-63B-9639 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (hereinafter r respondent No No.3. Learned with interest @ actual realisat the deceased 3. that while ass the net incom that after his Security Guar month. It is su the deceased deducted the the deceased deduction cou Supreme Cou Company Ltd. 12.10.2018. It as Rs.18,078/ 4. been applied should be 20% er referred to as ‘the offending t No.1, owned by respondent No.2 rned Tribunal awarded compensat est @ 6% per annum from the date lisation. The three claimants are th sed-Raj Singh. Learned counsel for the a assessing the compensation, the le come of the deceased as Rs.16,745 his retirement from the Army, the uard since 2011, and his gross is submitted that the claimants had sed as Ex.P5 however, the learne the Provident Fund and ESI and has sed as only Rs.16,745/-. Learned could not have been made in view Court in “Sebastiani Lakra & Oth Ltd. & Another” Civil Appeal Nos.1 It is accordingly prayed that incom 78/- per month. It is further submitted tha lied on the lower side at the rate 20% as the deceased was working ing vehicle’), being driven by o.2, and insured by respondent nsation of Rs.13,96,240/- along ate of filing the claim petition till e the widow, son and mother of he appellants inter alia submits he learned Tribunal has assessed ,745/- per month. It is submitted , the deceased was serving as a oss salary was Rs.18,078/- per had proved salary certificate of arned Tribunal has erroneously has taken the monthly salary of ned counsel contains that this view of judgment of the Hon’ble Others Vs. National Insurance os.10588-89 of 2018 decided on ncome of the deceased be taken that future prospects have also rate of 10%; whereas the same ing as a Security Guard and was 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document retired from salaried job’. 5. appellants tha However, mult to have been a 6. Company opp submits that offending veh been filed in r that therefore accident in qu not. Referenc Tribunal in Par om the Armed Forces; and was . It is next contended by that the deceased was 55 years of multiplier of 9 has been applied, wh en applied. Learned counsel for r opposes the prayer made on be hat in the FIR (Ex.P1), the registra vehicle is mentioned as ‘HR-63B in respect of registration number ‘H fore, this casts a shadow of dou n question was caused by the drive rence is also made to the observa Para 21 of the impugned Award, w “21. So far as the income of the concerned, it has been argue respondent No.3- Insurance Com have not suffered any loss of incom per statement of pension accou received the pension of the d However, except document Ex. placed on file any other document had suffered any loss towards Perusal of the document Ex.P26 m death of the deceased in May, 20 as therefore in a ‘permanent by learned counsel for the rs of age on the date of incident. , whereas multiplier of 11 ought r respondent No.3/Insurance behalf of the appellants and istration number of the alleged 3B-9609’; whereas challan had er ‘HR-63B-9639’. It is submitted doubt cast as to whether the river of the offending vehicle or ervations made by the learned d, which is as under:- f the deceased from pension is rgued by learned counsel for Company that the petitioners income in this regard because as ccount Ex.P26, petitioners had he deceased after his death. Ex. P26, petitioners have not mentary proof showing that they ards pension of the deceased. P26 makes it clear that after the y, 2017, his pension was received 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. appellants. 8. perused the ca 9. appellants tha on the lower record that th The learned T per month b judgment of t held that: – by the petitioner till November, brought by the petitioners to pro the deceased towards pension.” No other argument is I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. I find merit in the submis that the learned Tribunal has asses wer side as only Rs.16,745/- per m t the gross income of the deceased ed Tribunal has assessed income of h by making deductions for PF of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “14. As far as the amounts of concerned, these are paid on acco by the deceased to his employe principle of service jurisprud gratuity are the property of the d the nature of deferred wages. Th throughout his life expecting that substantial amount as pension a are also payable on death, what Therefore, applying the same p cannot be deducted.” ber, 2017. There is no evidence prove the loss of the income of ” is raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and mission made on behalf of the ssessed income of the deceased er month. It is admitted fact on ased was ₹18,078/– per month. e of the deceased as ₹16,745/– PF and ESI. In the afore-cited in Sebastiani Lakra (supra), it is ts of pension and gratuity are account of the service rendered ployer. It is now an established prudence that pension and he deceased. They are more in s. The deceased employee works that on his retirement he will get on and gratuity. These amounts hatever be the cause of death. e principles, the said amount 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. unable to disp is taken as ₹18 11. the appellants multiplier of 9 have been ap whereas the arguments als Hon’ble Supre (2009) AIR (S undisputed th Security Guard 12. Insurance Com number of th Tribunal in this Ld. Counsel for the respon dispute this position in law. Accordin ₹18,078/– per month. Next contention on behal lants is that the deceased being a of 9 has been incorrectly applied a n applied; and future prospects o the same ought to have been 1 s also which is in conformity with t upreme Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. D R (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID d that the deceased was an ex-servi uard at Shri Balaji Security Services, As regards the contention o Company in respect of the disc f the offending vehicle, the releva this regard is as under:- “14. It is not in dispute that recovered by the police from the supplementary statement dated Ranjeet Singh has duly explained h the changed registration numbe supplementary statement dated proved by PW3 HC Yudhvir Singh, during investigation of this case. Page 5 of 7 spondent-Insurance Company, is ordingly, income of the deceased ehalf of the learned counsel for ing admittedly 55 years of age, ed and multiplier of 11 ought to ts of 10% have been applied; n 15%. I find merit in these ith the law as laid down by the s. Delhi Transport Corporation” ID # 188882. It also remains erviceman and was working as a ices, Gurugram since 01.11.2011. ion on behalf of the respondent- discrepancy in the registration levant reasoning of the learned hat the offending vehicle was the place of accident and in the dated 17.5.2017 (Ex.P4), PW1 ined how he came to know about ber of the offending vehicle. His ated 17.5.2017 has also been ngh, who had recorded the same case. It is duly explained that in 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. under the Ac probabilities a 14. the compensa under:- Head Income Future prosp Deduction (1 Multiplier (ag Loss of depen Consortium Funeral expe the number plate, the number mentioned as HR-63B-9609 which its driver when he came to the ey digit '9609' was wrongly printed 9639 and on the same day, supple Ranjeet was written. Moreover, th at spot and recovered by the p plate. In the accident cases, scrutinised in the manner as sc where the case is to be proved be the motor vehicular accide during investigation the offendin number disclosed. Respondents challenged the investigation con case which shows that respond grievance with the investigation c It is established position Act are to be decided on the ies and are not to be conducted as a In view of the above, pre ensation awarded to the appellants Amount Rs.18,078/ Rs.2,16,936 rospects (15%) Rs.2,49,476 n (1/3rd) Rs.1,66,317 r (age 55) 11 ependency Rs.1,66,317 um Rs.48,000/ xpenses Rs.18,000/ ber of offending vehicle was hich was wrong as disclosed by e eye-witness and disclosed that nted but the actual number was upplementary statement of PW1 er, the offending vehicle was left he police with the said number ses, the evidence cannot be as scrutinised in criminal cases ed beyond reasonable doubts. In ccident cases, some time nding vehicle identified and its dents No.1 and 2 have not conducted by the police in this pondents No.1 and 2 have no ion conducted by the police.” ion in law that claim petitions the basis of preponderance of as a strict criminal trial. present appeal is allowed and lants/claimants is re-assessed as 78/- per month x 12 = ,936/- per annum ,476/- per annum ,317/- per annum ,317/- x 11 = Rs.18,29,487/- 00/- x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/- 00/- 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Loss of estate Total 15. 09.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo state Rs.18,000/ Rs.20,09,48 Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No 00/- 9,487/- if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document