FAO-1554 IN THE HIG 125 Laxmi Kuma Harpreet Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-4844-C 1. Limitation A accompanyin 2. 3. supported by filing the pre 4. claimants fo FAO-1554 1. enhancemen Accident Cl vide Award 54-2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA i Kumari and others Versus eet Singh and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, Adv Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate f I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963is for condonation of d panying appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is allow the present appeal is condoned. Needless to say, no interest wil nts for the aforesaid period of 167 day 1554-2025 The appellant-claimants have fi cement of the compensation of ₹17,71 ent Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for ward dated 09.05.2024, passed in MA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1554-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA y, Advocate for ocate for the appellants. on filed under Section 5 of the n of delay of 167 days in filing the ned in the application which is s allowed and delay of 167 days in will be payable to the appellant- 67 days. ave filed the present appeal seeking 17,71,000/- awarded by the Motor (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in MACP Petition No. 155 of 2022 the the h is s in king otor ) RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 filed under S claimants ar parents of de of accident. 2. basis of pl deceased-Ma took place o bearing regi offending v respondent N respondent above compe of filing the held liable to amount of co 1. La 2. Am 3. Ju (min 4. Ab 5. Ch 6. Ra 3. compensatio assessed the submitted th accident in q was earning 54-2025 (O&M) -2- nder Sections 166 and 140 of Moto nts are the: i) 29-year-old widow; ii deceased Manoj Kumar Dass who ident. Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce Manoj Kumar Dass, had died in a lace on 25.01.2022 due to the rash an g registration No. PB-23-T-1817 (he ing vehicle’) by respondent No.1 dent No. 2-M/s Chankaya Dairy Pr dent No. 3-Insurance Company. Le compensation along with interest @ 7 g the claim petition till actual realizat iable to pay the amount of compensat t of compensation is apportioned amo Laxmi Kumari (Widow) 2. Aman Kumar (minor son) Juli Kumari (minor daughter) 4. Abhishek Kumar (minor son) 5. Chameliya Devi, mother 6. Ram Chander Dass, father Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that the lea ed the income of the deceased as tted that the appellants have proved in question, the deceased was work arning ₹20,000/- per month. Learned Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 06 ow; ii) 03 minor children; and iii) ss who was 36 years old at the time re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that d in a motor vehicular accident that rash and negligent driving of Truck (hereinafter referred to as ‘the No.1-Harpreet Singh; owned by iry Products Ltd.; and insured by y. Learned Tribunal awarded the st @ 7.5% per annum from the date ealization. All the respondents were pensation jointly and severally. The d amongst the claimants as under: - 35% 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% appellants seeks enhancement of he learned Tribunal has wrongly as only ₹9000/- per month. It is roved on record that prior to the s working as Printing Operator and arned counsel submits that despite iii) time he that that ruck ‘the by by the date ere The t of ngly It is the and pite RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 this learned the lower sid 4. as only spou Nothing has 5. 6. Company, at 7. present in C Company. L submissions that just an appellants. 8. 9. detail. I find appellants. 10. the appellant was workin Limited, G. Ludhiana an had produced was drawing 54-2025 (O&M) -3- arned Tribunal had assessed the month er side as only ₹9000/- per month. Ld. counsel also submits that co y spousal consortium has been award g has been paid by way of consortium Heard. Notice of motion only to any, at this stage. On the asking of Court, Mr. Nee t in Court accepts notice on behalf o . Learned counsel for respondent N ssions advanced by learned counsel f ust and fair compensation has alr No other argument is raised on I have heard learned counsel I find some merit in the arguments . Perusal of the record shows th pellant-claimants that prior to the acci orking as Operator of Printing Ma d, G.T. Road, Village Kot Sekho and was earning ₹20,000/- per mo oduced salary slip of the deceased as rawing salary of ₹19,879/- per mont monthly income of the deceased on compensation is to be enhanced awarded to claimant No. 1-widow. ortium to claimants No. 2 to 6. to respondent No. 3-Insurance r. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate who is half of respondent No. 3-Insurance dent No. 3 vehemently opposes the nsel for the appellants and submits as already been awarded to the ed on behalf of the parties. l and perused the case file in uments advanced on behalf of the ws that it was the pleaded case of e accident in question, the deceased ng Machine in Ganga Acrowools Sekhon, Tehsil Khanna, District er month. In support, the appellants ed as Ex. C-8 as per which appellant month. However, said salary slip d on ced ow. ance o is ance the mits the e in the e of ased ools trict ants llant slip RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 cannot be rel by the claim deceased. statement of their claim 1/widow of studied up t expertise in Rohit Ram, he did not k this scenario Tribunal as 11. the time of Accordingly future prosp Court in Na others, (201 Sarla Verm 188882. As made deduct 12. Tribunal ha consortium ₹15,000/- 54-2025 (O&M) -4- t be relied upon as no official from the e claimants to prove the alleged o ed. Even no documentary proof in ent of the deceased was produced by laim and to corroborate salary slip E w of deceased as PW-1 had admi d up to 8th standard; and he was no ise in any field; and that he was not Ram, eye-witness has also admitted d not know the qualification, age, or enario, income of the deceased has al as ₹9000/- per month as that of a la Further, age of the deceased wa me of accident on the basis of dingly, the learned Tribunal had made prospects in conformity with judgm National Insurance Company Li , (2017) 16 SCC 680; and correctly a Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corpor As there were 06 claimants, the le deduction of 1/3rd towards personal exp However, under the Conven al has awarded a sum of ₹40,000 rtium only to claimant No. 1; ₹15,000 towards funeral expenses. Not m the said Company was examined ged occupation or income of the oof in the form of bank account ed by the appellants to substantiate slip Ex. C-8. Rather, claimant No. admitted that deceased had only as not having any qualification or s not an income-tax assessee.PW-2 itted during cross-examination that occupation of the deceased. In d has been rightly assessed by the of a labourer. was determined to be 36 years at of Post-mortem Report Ex.P-2. d made an addition of 40% towards judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ny Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ectly applied multiplier of 15as per orporation, Law Finder Doc Id # , the learned Tribunal has correctly nal expenses. onventional Heads, the learned 40,000/- towards loss of spousal 15,000/- towards loss of estate; and s. Nothing has been awarded to ined the ount tiate No. only n or 2 that In the rs at . ards eme and per Id # ctly rned usal and to RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1554 claimants No to 4) and fili the Hon’ble to 6 are enti filial consort 13. partly allo re-assessed a Details Income Future prospe Deduction Multiplier Loss dependency Loss of sp consortium Loss of pa consortium Loss of consortium Funeral expen Loss of Estat Total compensatio Interest 14. 25.02.2026 rishu 54-2025 (O&M) -5- nts No. 2 to 6 towards loss of parenta nd filial consortium (claimants No. 5 n’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s c re entitled to an amount of ₹40,000/ onsortium, respectively. In view of the above discuss allowed and compensation paya essed as under:- Before the Tribunal ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum prospects 40% ₹9000+3600 x 12=₹1,51,200/- 1/4th= ₹37,800/- per annum 1,51,200- 37,800 = 1,13,400/- 15 of ency ₹1,13,400/- x 15 = ₹17,01,000/- of spousal ₹40,000/- to claimant No. 1/widow only of parental Nil of filial Nil l expenses ₹15,000/- f Estate ₹15,000/- nsation ₹17,71,000/- 7.5% per annum Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable tal consortium (claimants No. 2 No. 5 and 6). In view of law laid by ma’s case (supra), appellants No. 2 ,000/- each by way of parental and discussion, the present appeal is payable to the appellants is Revised compensation ₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum 40% ₹9000+3600 x 12 = ₹1,51,200/- 1/4th = ₹37,800/- per annum 1,51,200-37,800 = 1,13,400/- 15 ₹1,13,400/- x 15 = ₹17,01,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 4 (minor children) i.e. 40,000 x 3 = ₹1,20,000/- ₹40,000/- each to claimants No. 5 and 6 (parents of the deceased) 40,000 x 2 = ₹80,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹19,71,000/- 7.5% any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No o. 2 d by o. 2 and RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.