NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. SATNAM SINGH AND ORS
FAO/4300/2019 · 2025-04-24
Pankaj Jain
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58353 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58353 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
FAO-4300-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 256 FAO-4300-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.04.2025 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...... Appellant versus Satnam Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. Insurance company is in appeal questioning the assessment of compensation awarded by MACT, Barnala to the respondents- claimants on account of death of Sukhdev Singh, who was 74 years of age in a motor vehicular accident dated 19.01.2017.
2. Mr. Jaiswal submits that the income of Rs.10,000/- has been assessed on higher side. Though, it has been claimed by the claimants that the deceased was an agriculturist, however, the evidence brought on record is with respect to 2 kanal 15 marlas of land. He further submits that keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 74 years, future prospects ought not have been awarded. Further submits that 1/2 ought to have been deducted for calculating dependency as none of the claimants was dependent upon the deceased.
DINESH KUMAR 2025.05.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-4300-2019 (O&M)
3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in view the age of claimants as well as age of the deceased, 1/3rd deduction has been rightly awarded. However, he is not in a position to dispute that so far as future prospects of 30% are concerned, the same ought not have been granted by the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased.
4. In view of above, award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the respondents are held not entitled to 30% addition under the heading of future income. Rest of the award is maintained.
5. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal is disposed off.
6. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE 24.04.2025
Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2025.05.06 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document