FAO- 2441-2003(O&M) 1 208-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO- 2441-2003(O&M) Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Smt. Laj and others ..Appellants Versus Abdulla Rafiq @ Yunis and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent no.3 MANDEEP PANNU, J. 1. This is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 12.01.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) with a prayer to modify the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,500/- on account of death of Sandeep in a vehicular accident, which took place on 09.03.1999. The claim petition has been filed on behalf of his parents, brother and sister. There is no dispute with regard to the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding death of deceased in the aforesaid vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving by Driver of the offending truck bearing registration plate no. RJ-20-G-0085. Hence, the only issue is with regard to quantum of compensation. REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.22 02:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO- 2441-2003(O&M) 2 2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts, as recorded by the Tribunal, in the impugned award, are not being reproduced herein. 3. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded 1. Monthly Income 3000/- 2. Deduction for personal & Living expenses 1/3rd i.e 1000 1000/- 3. Monthly Loss of dependency 3000-1000 = 2000 2000/- 4. Annual income 2000x12 = 24000 24000/- 5. Multiplier 10 10 x 24000 = 2,40,000 2,40,000/- 6. Transportation charges 500/- 7. Funeral expenses 2000/- Total Rs. 2,42,500/- 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate. The Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased, applying multiplier as well as awarding inadequate amount under head funeral expenses. Moreover, Tribunal has failed to grant any future prospects on account of escalation in income and amount under Head ‘Loss of Consortium’. He places reliance upon law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.22 02:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO- 2441-2003(O&M) 3 Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130]. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount towards compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. First of all, let us assess income of deceased. The claimants claim that deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4500/-per month by working as mason. However, Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.3000/- per month. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chameli Devi and others vs. Jivrali Mian and others 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 884 in a case where deceased was carpenter and died in a vehicular accident, which took place in year 2001, assessed his monthly income at rate of Rs.5000/- and held that in such cases where deceased is engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral evidence. Therefore, by applying ratio of this judgment, income of deceased in the present case is assessed as Rs.4500/- where accident took place in 1999. In view of observations of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), future prospects are assessed as 40% and claimants- appellants are also held entitled to Rs.18,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses as well as Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Considering the age of deceased as 21 years, REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.22 02:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO- 2441-2003(O&M) 4 multiplier will be 18 in view of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, 1/3rd deduction on account of personal expenses is maintained. No doubt, deceased was bachelor and as per settled law, deduction on account of his personal expenses should be ½, however, considering the present case, where father of deceased himself was dependent upon him due to his amputated leg and family consists of parents and two siblings, this Court is of the considered view that deduction at rate of 1/3rd is appropriate and the same is maintained. Amount of Rs.500/- awarded for transportation is also maintained. 8. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed as under : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded 1. Monthly Income 4500/- 2. Deduction for personal & Living expenses 1/3rd i.e 1500/- 1500/- 3. Monthly Loss of dependency 4500-1500 = 3000 3000/- 4. Future prospects @ 40% 3000x40% = 1200/- 4200/- [3000+1200] 5. Annual income 4200x12 = 50,400/- 50,400/- 6. Multiplier 18 18 x 50400 = 9,07,200/- 9,07,200/- 7. Transportation charges 500/- 8. Funeral expenses 18000/- 9. Loss of estate 18,000/- 10. Loss of consortium @ Rs.48,000/- each 48000x 4= 1,92,000 1,92,000/- Total Compensation Rs.11,35,700/- REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.22 02:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO- 2441-2003(O&M) 5 9. So far as interest part is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relies upon decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & ors 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 75, where interest @ 12 % per annum was granted in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where claimant no.1-widow of the deceased herself suffered permanent disability of 25% in the accident and has single handedly raised her three minor children while pursuing legal proceedings for 22 years. However, the facts of the present case are somewhat different as in the present case, the claimant has not suffered any disability. Therefore, the claimants-appellants in the present case shall be entitled to difference in amount of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Rest of the award needs no modification. 10. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed. 11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 19.09.2025 JUDGE rekha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.22 02:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh