135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5748-2025 Date of Decision: January 12, 2026 Paramjeet Kaur and others … Appellants Versus Nadeem Ahmad and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellants. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) One Kuldeep Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 20.09.2024 due to rash and negligent driving of a vehicle bearing registra%on No.UK-07-AQ-4956. His widow, minor child and parents filed claim pe%%on under Sec%on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa%on against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal assessed the compensa%on of
51,40,606/- and held all the three respondents to be jointly and severally liable to make payment along with interest. 2. The claimants have approached this Court for seeking enhancement. 3. The only ground pleaded by learned counsel for the claimants- appellants is that the income of the deceased had been taken on the lower side; that his income was roughly
30,000/-, whereas the Tribunal has taken into account the income of the deceased as
21,600/- per month. Another conten%on of learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the appropriate mul%plier should have been 17 instead of 16 as applied by the Tribunal. 4. However, both the conten%ons are found to be without any merit. SARITA RANI 2026.01.12 17:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order FAO-5748-2025 - 2 - 2026:PHHC:001592 5. A perusal of the salary cer%ficate of August, 2024, i.e. immediately prior to the date of accident of the deceased would reveal that he was working in Municipal Corpora%on and was ge8ng gross salary of
21,600/- per month, which has been duly taken into considera%on by the Tribunal. 6. In the aforesaid cer%ficate, the date of birth of the deceased is men%oned as 26.10.1993, which means that as on the date of accident, he was more than 30 years of age. As such, the mul%plier of 16 has been correctly applied by the Tribunal, in view of “Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another”, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 7. On account of the en%re discussion as above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula. As such, finding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. January 12, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.01.12 17:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order