IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 FAO-4302-2025 Date of Decision.: 20.04.2026 Priyanshi and Others …..Appellants Vs. Rinku and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants– claimants seeking modifica$on/enhancement of the award dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, whereby compensa$on to the tune of ₹42,58,384/- was awarded under Sec$on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the death of Harsh Kaushik in a motor vehicular accident. 2. A brief recital of facts would show that the accident in ques$on occurred on 09.10.2023, when Harsh Kaushik lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registra$on No. HR-03F-2323. The claim pe$$on was ins$tuted by the widow, minor daughter and parents of the deceased seeking compensa$on from the driver-cum-owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Upon apprecia$on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently fastened joint and several liability upon the respondents to pay the awarded compensa$on along with interest. 4. In the present appeal, the challenge is narrowly confined. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 32–33 years and consequently applying the mul$plier of ‘16’. It is contended that as per the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4302-2025 Aadhaar Card, the date of birth of the deceased was 13.10.1995 and, therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 09.10.2023, he was approximately 28 years of age, warran$ng applica$on of mul$plier ‘17’ in terms of the seAled principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5. However, the aforesaid conten$on does not merit acceptance when tested on the touchstone of the eviden$ary record. A perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the pleadings of the claimants themselves, wherein the age of the deceased was specifically pleaded to be 32 years. Not only this, PW-2 Prerna Pathak, widow of the deceased, while stepping into the witness box, unequivocally deposed that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the $me of his death. Thus, there existed a clear and consistent admission on behalf of the claimants regarding the age of the deceased. 6. It is a seAled principle of law that admissions made in pleadings as well as in evidence cons$tute substan$ve evidence and bind the party unless sa$sfactorily explained. In the present case, no aAempt has been made to either withdraw or explain the said admission. 7. This Court, during the course of hearing, specifically queried the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether any documentary evidence such as educa$onal cer$ficates or service records of the employer—Peregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur—reflec$ng the date of birth of the deceased was available. Learned counsel fairly conceded that no such record exists. Even the alleged Aadhaar Card, which forms the founda$on of the present argument, has not been placed on record. There is also no material to establish the authen$city or the date of prepara$on of such document. 8. In absence of any cogent documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was fully jus$fied in placing reliance upon the pleadings and oral tes$mony of the claimants themselves. Once the age is taken to be within the bracket of 30–35 years, the applica$on of mul$plier ‘16’ strictly conforms to the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4302-2025 Corporaon (supra), which has been consistently followed and affirmed in subsequent judgments including Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. 9. It is also per$nent to note that appellate interference in quantum is warranted only where the assessment by the Tribunal is shown to be either arbitrary, perverse or contrary to seAled principles. In the present case, the determina$on of age and applica$on of mul$plier is based on admissions and proper apprecia$on of evidence and, therefore, does not call for interference. 10. No other argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellants. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 20, 2026 Nee$ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document