IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 211 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Indu Bala and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) CM-1629 27 days in filing the present appeal. allowed and the delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM-1630 09 days in re allowed and the delay of 09 days in re condoned. FAO-493-2017 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.493 of 2017 (O & M) Date of decision : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Indu Bala and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No.1. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1629-CII-2017 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1630-CII-2017 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 09 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 09 days in re condoned. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.493 of 2017 (O & M) Date of decision :-25.07.2025 …..Appellant …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate application is for condonation of delay of For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal is The application stands disposed of. Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 09 days in re-filing the present appeal is VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 09.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1632 FAO-493 Insurance Company assailing the Award dated 10.8.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the dated 06.5.2015 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) has been allowed, and the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.20,69,000/ per annum. and mother of the deceased of accident. basis of pleadings, oral before it concluded that the deceased Rajesh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 3.4.2015 due to Roadways bearing Registra referred as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.5 and owned by respondent No.6. impugned Award on the ground FAO-493-2017 (O & M) The application stands disposed of. 1632-CII-2017 Allowed as prayed for. 493-2017 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company assailing the Award dated 10.8.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby the Claim Petition No.109 RT of 2015 .5.2015 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) has been allowed, and the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.20,69,000/ per annum. The four claimants are the widow, two minor children and mother of the deceased-Rajesh, who was 24 years old at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it concluded that the deceased Rajesh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 3.4.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus of Haryana Roadways bearing Registration No.HR-47 referred as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.5 and owned by respondent No.6. Learned counsel for the appellant challenge impugned Award on the ground of 2 The application stands disposed of. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company assailing the Award dated 10.8.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter ‘the Claim Petition No.109 RT of 2015 .5.2015 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) has been allowed, and the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.20,69,000/-alongwith interest @ 7.5% The four claimants are the widow, two minor children Rajesh, who was 24 years old at the time Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the documentary evidence produced before it concluded that the deceased Rajesh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on rash and negligent driving of Bus of Haryana 47-B7906 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.5 Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the quantum of compensation. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 09.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased has on the higher side accident had taken place in Rajasthan, therefore, minimum wages applicable in Rajasthan at the relevant time ought to have been t as income of the deceased.It is contended that as per Notification No.2328 dated 07.2.2017 issued by the Labour Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labour Rs.5902/- has been taken on the higher side and the same deserves to be reduced. learned Tribunal has added future prospects @ 50% whereas the same ought to have been @ 40%. It is accordi impugned Award be modified as above. opposes the submissions made on behalf of appellant and submits that a deduction of 1/3 ought to have been 1/4 It is also pointed out that consortium claimants and nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal dese the present appeal has not been filed by the claimants and has been filed by the Insurance Company and therefore compensation cannot be enhanced FAO-493-2017 (O & M) counsel submits that income of the deceased has on the higher side as Rs.9000/- per month accident had taken place in Rajasthan, therefore, minimum wages applicable in Rajasthan at the relevant time ought to have been t as income of the deceased.It is contended that as per Notification No.2328 dated 07.2.2017 issued by the Labour Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labour -. Therefore, income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side and the same deserves to be Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has added future prospects @ 50% whereas the same ought to have been @ 40%. It is accordi impugned Award be modified as above. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the submissions made on behalf of appellant and submits that a deduction of 1/3rd has been made by the ht to have been 1/4th keeping in view that there are four claimants. It is also pointed out that consortium has not been awarded to all the claimants and nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal dese Learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal submits that the present appeal has not been filed by the claimants and has been filed by the Insurance Company and therefore compensation cannot enhanced on the basis of submissions of the claimants. No other argument is made on behalf of the 3 counsel submits that income of the deceased has been taken per month. It is submitted that the accident had taken place in Rajasthan, therefore, minimum wages applicable in Rajasthan at the relevant time ought to have been taken as income of the deceased.It is contended that as per Notification No.2328 dated 07.2.2017 issued by the Labour Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer were herefore, income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal has been taken on the higher side and the same deserves to be Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has added future prospects @ 50% whereas the same ought to have been @ 40%. It is accordingly prayed that the Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the submissions made on behalf of appellant and submits that the Tribunal whereas the same keeping in view that there are four claimants. has not been awarded to all the claimants and nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal submits that the present appeal has not been filed by the claimants and has been filed by the Insurance Company and therefore compensation cannot of the claimants. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 09.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties. was working in a hospital and earning Rs.30,000/ However, claimants. As such, deceased as Rs.9000/ prevailing at that time. accident had taken place in Rajasthan, therefore, income ought to have been determined as per the minimum wages prevailing in Rajasthan, is liable to be petition was filed in Haryana, and the claimants are residen Haryana, and therefore, the minimum wages applicable in Haryana will apply. appellant that future prospects ought to have been added @ 40% in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. appellant that compensation cannot be enhanced in the present appeal as it is not filed awarded to the claimants is modified in the following Age of deceased Occupation FAO-493-2017 (O & M) I have heard learned Counse have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties. It was the pleaded case of the was working in a hospital and earning Rs.30,000/ However, no documentary evidence was produced claimants. As such, ld. Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9000/- per month as prevailing at that time. The contention of the appellant that as the accident had taken place in Rajasthan, therefore, income ought to have been determined as per the minimum wages prevailing in Rajasthan, is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the claim petition was filed in Haryana, and the claimants are residen Haryana, and therefore, the minimum wages applicable in Haryana will apply. However, there is merit in the submission of the appellant that future prospects ought to have been added @ 40% in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. Further, there is also merit in the submission of the nt that compensation cannot be enhanced in the present appeal not filed by the claimants. Keeping in view the above facts, awarded to the claimants is modified in the following Date of accident 03.4.2015 Age of About 24 years Occupation Held to be Labourer Heads of Claim Tribunal 4 Counse land perused the case file. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of was the pleaded case of the claimants that the deceased was working in a hospital and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. no documentary evidence was produced in support by the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the per the minimum wages The contention of the appellant that as the accident had taken place in Rajasthan, therefore, income ought to have been determined as per the minimum wages prevailing in view of the fact that the claim petition was filed in Haryana, and the claimants are residents of Haryana, and therefore, the minimum wages applicable in Haryana However, there is merit in the submission of the appellant that future prospects ought to have been added @ 40% in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Further, there is also merit in the submission of the nt that compensation cannot be enhanced in the present appeal Keeping in view the above facts, the compensation awarded to the claimants is modified in the following manner: - 03.4.2015 Tribunal This Court VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 09.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 allowed in the above terms. July 25, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / N FAO-493-2017 (O & M) Amount (Rs.) Income Rs.9000/ PM Add, % of Increase 30%/50% 50% Deduction ½, 1/3, ¼, 1/5 1/3 Multiplicant (annualized) (9000+4500=13500- 4500=9000x12) 1,08,000/ per annum Multiplier 18 Loss of dependency 19,44,000/ Medical expenses -- Loss of Consortium 1,00,000/ Loss of Estate -- Funeral Expenses 25,000/ TOTAL 20,69,000/ In view of the aforesaid, the present in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 5 Amount (Rs.) Rs.9000/- Rs.9000/- PM 50% 40%=Rs.3600/- 1/3 1,08,000/- per annum 12,600/3=4200/- (12,600- 4200=8400/-) 18 19,44,000/- 18,14,400/- -- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- -- 25,000/- 25,000/- 20,69,000/- 19,39,400/- In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is partly Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 09.44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document