FAO-2137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rupa Kumari and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-6758-CII Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. by an affidavit, the same is accompanying appeal is condoned. FAO-2137 1. Company laying challenge to the Award dated learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned 2137-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rupa Kumari and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of accompanying appeal is condoned. 2137-2025 (O&M) The present appeal has been filed by the laying challenge to the Award dated Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition bearing MACP No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2137-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 .…Appellant ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate Insurance Company. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 39 days in filing the The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance laying challenge to the Award dated 04.11.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to ) whereby the claim petition bearing MACP No. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported days in filing the Insurance passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to ) whereby the claim petition bearing MACP No. RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 336 dated19.05.2022 under Sections allowed; and the ₹33,06,220 deceased - time of accident. 2. basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Suraj Kumar place on 19.04.2022 registration No.PB vehicle’), being driven by respondent No. 5; and insured by awarded compensation as above along wi from the date of filing the claim petition till actual amount of compensation under: - 1.Rupa Kumari 2.Bijali Devi 3.Kanhu Harijan, father 3. assails the impugned Award dated 04.11.2024 is deceased has been taken by the learned Tribunal on the higher side as ₹15,450/- per month on the basis of DC Rates. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased ought to have been 2137-2025 (O&M) -2- 19.05.2022 filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle allowed; and the claimants have been granted compensation of 33,06,220/-. The 03 claimants are the: i) widow; and ii) parents of Suraj Kumar Harijan who was stated to be 22 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that Suraj Kumar had died in a motor vehicular accident that took 19.04.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of registration No.PB-22-G-3033 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No. and insured by the appellant-Insurance Company. awarded compensation as above along wi from the date of filing the claim petition till actual amount of compensation was apportioned amongst the claimants as .Rupa Kumari wife 40 of the compensation amount .Bijali Devi, mother 30% of the .Kanhu Harijan, father 30% of the compensation amount The only ground on which the appellant assails the impugned Award dated 04.11.2024 is deceased has been taken by the learned Tribunal on the higher side as per month on the basis of DC Rates. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased ought to have been claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been been granted compensation of The 03 claimants are the: i) widow; and ii) parents of Suraj Kumar Harijan who was stated to be 22 years old at the s of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that had died in a motor vehicular accident that took due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending 4; owned by respondent No. Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. The apportioned amongst the claimants as 40 of the compensation amount 0% of the compensation amount 0% of the compensation amount The only ground on which the appellant-Insurance Company assails the impugned Award dated 04.11.2024 is that income of the deceased has been taken by the learned Tribunal on the higher side as per month on the basis of DC Rates. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein , 1988, has been been granted compensation of The 03 claimants are the: i) widow; and ii) parents of Suraj Kumar Harijan who was stated to be 22 years old at the Insurance Company that income of the deceased has been taken by the learned Tribunal on the higher side as per month on the basis of DC Rates. Learned counsel submits as per the RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 relevant Minimum Wages Notific not have been assessed on the basis of DC rates. 4. judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2011, titled as Govind Yadav vs. Th Limited, decided on The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., of this Court in SBI General Insurance 09.03.2023. that notional income of the deceased is to be assess Minimum Wages prevalent prayed that the impugned Award be set aside/modified. 5. 6. the case file in great detail. 7. appellant. No doubt, it is the norm that the basis of Minimum Wages notification accident. However, special wages and the same can learned counsel for the appellant upon the misconceived as income cannot be assessed on the basis of DC rates. 2137-2025 (O&M) -3- relevant Minimum Wages Notification as ₹ not have been assessed on the basis of DC rates. In support, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon 02 judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2011, titled as Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, decided on 01.11.2011; (ii) Manusha The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Law Finder Doc Id # of this Court in FAO-3235-2017 with XOBJC SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rinku and others decided on 09.03.2023. It is submitted that it has been held in the aforesaid judgment that notional income of the deceased is to be assess Minimum Wages prevalent on the date of accident. prayed that the impugned Award be set aside/modified. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the sole submission mad appellant. No doubt, it is the norm that the the basis of Minimum Wages notification . However, special wages as per DC rates are often times granted; and the same cannot be stated to be against law. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the misconceived as, no opinion in the said judgments has been income cannot be assessed on the basis of DC rates. ₹10,000/- per month; and could not have been assessed on the basis of DC rates. In support, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon 02 judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (i)Civil Appeal No. 9014 of e New India Insurance Company ; (ii) Manusha Sreekumar and other vs. Law Finder Doc Id # 2049874 and 2017 with XOBJC-187-CII-2017, titled as Co. Ltd. vs. Rinku and others decided on It is submitted that it has been held in the aforesaid judgments that notional income of the deceased is to be assessed on the basis of on the date of accident. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be set aside/modified. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused sole submission made on behalf of the the income is usually assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages notification prevalent on the date of as per DC rates are often times granted; be stated to be against law. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the aforementioned judgments is no opinion in the said judgments has been given that income cannot be assessed on the basis of DC rates. per month; and could In support, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon 02 Civil Appeal No. 9014 of e New India Insurance Company Sreekumar and other vs. and 2017, titled as Co. Ltd. vs. Rinku and others decided on on the basis of e on behalf of the income is usually assessed on prevalent on the date of as per DC rates are often times granted; be stated to be against law. Reliance placed by is given that RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 8. No. 1 to 3 herein that at the time of death, the deceased was doing a private job in Ludhiana and was earning no evidence was produced on record by the claimants to prove the avocation and monthly income of the deceased. income of the deceased, the fact that ‘The income provided in Minimum Wages Act, revised from time to time can be a basic criteria deceased or injured, as the case may be. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be evaluated. No restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of the deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fai compensation for the dependents. The provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and in such like situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as provided under Minimum Wages Act is unjustifi learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as per the rates issued by Haryana Kaushal Rozgar per notification dated 19.01.2022 no. 7004 21.11.1941 9. P-11, age of the Post-mortem Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years of age, however, age of the deceased was not disp Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle 2137-2025 (O&M) -4- Further, it was the pleaded case of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein that at the time of death, the deceased was doing a private job in Ludhiana and was earning ₹ no evidence was produced on record by the claimants to prove the avocation and monthly income of the deceased. income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has duly taken note of the ‘The income provided in Minimum Wages Act, revised from time to time can be a basic criteria or guideline to assess the income of deceased or injured, as the case may be. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be evaluated. No restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of the deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fai compensation for the dependents. The provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and in such like situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as provided under Minimum Wages Act is unjustifi learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as per the rates issued by Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam for the financial year 2022 per notification dated 19.01.2022 no. 7004 21.11.1941. Further, on the basis of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex. 11, age of the deceased was established to be 22 years. Although, in the mortem Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years owever, age of the deceased was not disp Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle was the pleaded case of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein that at the time of death, the deceased was doing a ₹30,000/- per month. However, no evidence was produced on record by the claimants to prove the alleged avocation and monthly income of the deceased. As such, in assessing the learned Tribunal has duly taken note of the ‘The income provided in Minimum Wages Act, revised from time or guideline to assess the income of deceased or injured, as the case may be. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be evaluated. No restriction can be imposed in assessing the income of the deceased or the injured in order to assess just and fair compensation for the dependents. The provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and in such like situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as provided under Minimum Wages Act is unjustified’. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as per the rates issued Nigam for the financial year 2022-2023 as per notification dated 19.01.2022 no. 7004-F-41/60571 (FIN-GEN), dated the basis of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex. deceased was established to be 22 years. Although, in the mortem Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years owever, age of the deceased was not disputed by the appellant- Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle was the pleaded case of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein that at the time of death, the deceased was doing a per month. However, alleged As such, in assessing the learned Tribunal has duly taken note of the ‘The income provided in Minimum Wages Act, revised from time or guideline to assess the income of deceased or injured, as the case may be. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be evaluated. No restriction can be imposed in assessing r compensation for the dependents. The provision to grant compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and in such like situation, the restriction to assess the income of deceased victim as Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as per the rates issued as GEN), dated the basis of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex. deceased was established to be 22 years. Although, in the mortem Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 before the learned Tribunal, as such, age of the deceased was taken to be 22 years. 10. accident, 40% towa learned Tribunal Supreme Court in Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 correctly made are three claimants; and as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Corporation, further granted an amount of towards funeral expenses. Further, an amount of granted to the claimants towards consortium and another amount of ₹10,000/- Tribunal awarded the compensation in following manner: Heads Income Future Pros Deduction Multiplier 18 Loss of Estate Funeral expenses Litigation expenses Loss of filial consortium Loss of spousal consortium Total Compensation with interest @ 6% per annum 2137-2025 (O&M) -5- before the learned Tribunal, as such, age of the deceased was taken to be As the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of alleged accident, 40% towards future prospects have learned Tribunal in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned Tribunal has further made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, are three claimants; and as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882 further granted an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate; towards funeral expenses. Further, an amount of granted to the claimants towards consortium and another amount of has been granted towards litigation expenses. The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in following manner: Amount ₹15,450/- Future Prospects 40% i.e. ₹6180/ 12 = ₹2,59,560/ Deduction 1/3rd i.e. ₹ ₹86,520/- = Multiplier 18 ₹1,73,040/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- expenses ₹10,000/- Loss of filial consortium ₹48,400 x 2 = Loss of spousal consortium ₹48,400/- Total Compensation along with interest @ 6% per ₹33,06,220/ before the learned Tribunal, as such, age of the deceased was taken to be the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of alleged rds future prospects have been correctly added by the in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay The learned Tribunal has further towards personal expenses, as there are three claimants; and as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has correctly been applied as per law laid down Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport 188882 The learned Tribunal has towards loss of estate; ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, an amount of ₹40,000/- each has been granted to the claimants towards consortium and another amount of has been granted towards litigation expenses. The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in following manner:- 6180/- (15450+6180=21630/- x 2,59,560/-) ₹86,520/- (₹2,59,560/- minus = ₹1,73,040/-) - x 18 = ₹31,14,720/- 48,400 x 2 = ₹96,800/- ,06,220/- before the learned Tribunal, as such, age of the deceased was taken to be the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of alleged correctly added by the in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay The learned Tribunal has further as there are three claimants; and as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of n Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport The learned Tribunal has each has been granted to the claimants towards consortium and another amount of has been granted towards litigation expenses. The learned x minus RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 11. that merits dismissed. 12. 04.04.2025 rishu 2137-2025 (O&M) -6- In view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. . Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. .04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable the discussion above, I find no case is made out with the impugned Award. The appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the discussion above, I find no case is made out appeal is RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.