IN THE HI 227 Kamaljit Kau Bhagwan Sin CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA enhancemen Accident Cla Tribunal”) v No.20/21.07 1988 (herein widow; ii) minor son of of accident. 2. the basis of deceased-Su place on 18 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Kaur & Others Vs. n Singh & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Chetan Goyal, Advocate Ms. Monika Jalota, Advoca for the appellants. Mr. Munish Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** UPTA, J. Present appeal has been fi ment of compensation of Rs.12,1 Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafte ”) vide Award dated 10.02.201 1.07.2015 filed under Section 166 reinafter referred to as “the Act”) 19-year-old daughter; iii) 18-ye of the deceased-Sucha Singh who nt. Brief facts of the case are s of pleadings and evidence adduc Sucha Singh had died in a motor 18.05.2015 due to rash and neg D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3469-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate for ocate cate en filed by the claimants seeking 12,15,000/- granted by Motor after referred to as “the learned .2016 passed in MAC Case 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ct”). The 4 claimants are the: i) year-old son; iv) 16-year-old who was 53 years old at the time are that the learned Tribunal on duced before it concluded that tor vehicular accident that took negligent driving of motorcycle 6 SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bearing regi offending ve insured by re above along claim petitio apportioned 1 Kamaljit Ka 2 Ramanjeet 3 Harpreet S 4 Harvinder 3. of compensa Rs.10,000/- a Ragi in the month. How deceased wa judgment of Vipin Kumar that in the s deceased w therein had registration No.PB-11-BP-8364 (her g vehicle’), being owned and drive by respondent No.2. Learned Tribun long with interest @ 6% per annum tition till actual realisation. The a ned amongst the claimants as unde it Kaur wife 40 of t jeet Kaur, daughter 20% o et Singh, son 20% o der Singh minor son 20% o Learned counsel for the ap ensation on the grounds: a) that income of the dec - per month. It is submitted that t the Gurdwara Sahib and was earn However, learned Tribunal has tak d was only Rs.10,000/- per month as b) learned counsel relie t of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mu mar Sharma & Others” Law Finder he said case, the accident had taken d was working as a Pandit, and y had been assessed as Rs.12,000/ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the driven by respondent No.1 and ibunal awarded compensation as num from the date of filing the he amount of compensation is nder: - of the compensation amount % of the compensation amount % of the compensation amount % of the compensation amount e appellants seeks enhancement deceased has been taken only hat the deceased was working as earning at least Rs.20,000/- per taken notional income of the th as that of a casual labourer. elies upon three-Judge Bench “Munna Lal Jain & Another Vs. nder Doc ID # 670412, to submit aken place in the year 2008, the d yet income of the deceased 00/- per month by the Hon’ble 6 SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Supreme Co as only Rs.10 Supreme Co Sethi and O awarded to t appellants. T claimant whi 4. No.2/Insuran adduced on working as a deceased ha per month. future prosp Court in Pran No.1 has bee prayed that future prosp 5. 6. Court; whereas in the present cas s.10,000/- per month for an acciden c) that in non-conformity w Court in “National Insurance Co d Others” (2017) 16 SCC 680, no to the appellants; d) that even no consortiu ts. The appellants are entitled to co which would come to a total amoun Per contra, learned urance Company submits that ther on record by the appellants to pr as a Ragi in the Gurdwara Sahib. As d has been rightly assessed by the le . It is very fairly admitted that t rospects in conformity with the jud Pranay Sethi (supra). It is further p been awarded Rs.1 lakh as loss of hat no ground for enhancement is m rospects. No other argument is raise I have heard learned couns t case, the same has been taken ident which took place in 2015; ity with the judgment of Hon’ble e Company Limited Vs. Pranay no future prospects have been rtium has been granted to the to consortium of Rs.48,000/- per ount of Rs.1,92,000/-. d counsel for respondent there is no evidence whatsoever o prove that the deceased was . As such, notional income of the he learned Tribunal as ₹10,000/– at the claimants are entitled to e judgment of Hon’ble Supreme er pointed out that the claimant s of consortium. It is accordingly is made out except for grant of aised on behalf of the parties. unsel for the parties. 6 SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. learned Tribu Rs.10,000/- appellants b Rs.20,000/- However, a thereof, it ha fro 8. the above sa shown to thi as a Ragi or evidence in “...in the Stat It has been argued on beh Tribunal has wrongly assessed inco - per month; whereas it was ts before the learned Tribunal tha - per month by working as Ra r, a perusal of the impugned Aw it has been recorded as follows:- “21. Although according to the c serving as Granthi in a Gurudwar participating in religious ceremo earning Rs.20,000/-per month. P the deceased in her cross-exami has not any documentary eviden from any Gurudwara Committe working as Ragi or Granti in th stated that she has not brought that her husband was working a the Gurudwara Sahib. However, a not an income tax payee.” Learned counsel for the ap e said findings of the learned Tribu o this Court to remotely indicate tha i or Granthi in the Gurdwara Sahib in support. As such, Learned Trib State of Punjab even a casual labou behalf of the appellants that the income of the deceased as only was the pleaded case of the that the deceased was earning s Ragi in the Gurdwara Sahib. Award shows that in Para 21 he claimants, the deceased was dwara and also working as Ragi remonies and in that way was th. PW1 Kamaljit Kaur widow of xamination has stated that she vidence proof from the SGPC or mittee that her husband was in the Gurudwara. She further ght any certificate to the effect ng as Ragi as well as Granthi in er, admittedly the deceased was e appellants is unable to dispute Tribunal. Even nothing has been e that the deceased was working ahib let alone any documentary Tribunal has correctly held that abourer manage to earn Rs.250/ 6 SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to Rs.300/- Rs.10,000/- 9. appellants th appellants. H 24 shows th expenses; Rs Rs.1 lakh h No.1/widow. granted con ₹1,92,000/– deduction o the deceased applied. Fur relied upon distinguishab Court itself Rs.12,000/- was also pro 10. to the follow Details Income per day, as such I take the monthl -...” It has further been argued ts that nothing has been granted b ts. However, a perusal of the impu that the learned Tribunal has gra s; Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love a h has been granted as loss o dow. From the above, it is clear th consortium of ₹2 lakhs/– as op –. The learned Tribunal has n of 1/4th given the fact that there ased was only aged 53 years, multip Furthermore, the appellants can pon judgment of Munna Lal Jai shable on facts and law. In the sai self had determined income of t - per month and avocation of the proven on record. In view of the above discu llowing extent: - Before the Tribunal Rs.10,000/- per mo onthly income of the deceased as gued by learned counsel for the ed by way of consortium to the mpugned Award, especially Para s granted Rs.25,000/- as funeral ve and affection; and additional s of consortium to claimant r that the appellants have been s opposed to entitled sum of has further correctly applied there are four claimants; and as ultiplier of 11 has correctly been can derive no benefit from the l Jain (supra) as the same is e said case, the concerned High of the deceased therein to be f the deceased therein as Pandit iscussion, this appeal is allowed nal Revised compensation month Rs.10,000/- per month 6 SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Deduction Future prosp Multiplier Loss of estat Funeral expe Loss of con love & affect Total compen Interest Enhanced am 11. 07.01.2025 Sunena Whether spe Whether rep 1/4th rospects Nil 11 state - expenses Rs.25,000/- consortium/ ffection Rs.1 lakh+ Rs. 1 lakh Parental & Spousa pensation Rs.12,15,000/- 6% per annum d amount Rs.84,000/- Pending application(s) if an speaking/reasoned: Yes/No r reportable: Yes/No 1/4th 10% 11 - Rs.18,000/- lakh al Rs.48,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,92,000/- Rs.12,99,000/- 6% per annum if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document