IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 109+211 CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 01.04.2026 Smt. Mari Devi (since deceased) thr LRs and Another …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anil Gahlawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the award dated 14.09.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, limited to the ques)on of quantum of compensa)on. 2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that one Jagra Ram lost his life in a motor vehicular accident dated 21.08.1995, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registra)on No. HR-36-624 by respondent No.3. The deceased was unmarried and issue-less. The claim pe))on was ins)tuted by his widowed mother and unmarried sister, asser)ng dependency upon the income of the deceased. 3. The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia)on of evidence, awarded a sum of ₹1,72,000/- as compensa)on, fastening joint and several liability NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M) upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹1,950/- per month, ignoring the claim that he was earning ₹3,000/- per month as an electrician. It is further submi9ed that no addi)on towards future prospects was made, the mul)plier applied was incorrect, and no amount was awarded under conven)onal heads. Reliance has been placed upon se9led principles laid down in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680; Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others”, 2018(18) SCC 130. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there was no cogent evidence to establish the occupa)on or income of the deceased. It is further submi9ed that even the minimum wages at the relevant )me were lower than the income assessed by the Tribunal. However, it is fairly conceded that future prospects were not added and the mul)plier applied was not in consonance with the se9led legal posi)on. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the age of the deceased, as reflected in the post-mortem report, was 26 years. Although it was claimed that the deceased was working as an electrician earning ₹3,000/- per month, no documentary or reliable oral evidence was adduced to substan)ate the said claim. In absence of proof of skilled employment, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income on a no)onal basis. 7. However, this Court also no)ces that even though the minimum wages prevailing in the year 1995 were lower, the income assessed by the Tribunal at ₹1,950/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable so as to warrant reduc)on. Accordingly, the said Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M) income is maintained. 8. The annual income of the deceased thus comes to ₹23,400/-. In view of the authorita)ve pronouncement in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, addi)on towards future prospects is mandatory. Considering the age of the deceased (26 years), an addi)on of 40% is warranted. The income aAer such addi)on works out to ₹32,760/- per annum. 9. The next ques)on pertains to deduc)on towards personal expenses. Ordinarily, in the case of a bachelor, 50% deduc)on is applied as per Sarla Verma. However, the present case presents a peculiar factual situa)on. The deceased is survived by a widowed mother and an unmarried sister, and the evidence on record indicates that both were dependent upon him. The father had pre-deceased the deceased. In such circumstances, the excep)on carved out in Sarla Verma becomes applicable, wherein deduc)on can be restricted to one-third, if the family is dependent and circumstances jus)fy. 10. Considering the dependency of both claimants and the absence of any earning male member in the family, this Court deems it appropriate to deduct one-third towards personal expenses. Consequently, the annual contribu)on to the family (loss of dependency) comes to ₹21,840/-. 11. As regards mul)plier, for a deceased aged 26 years, the appropriate mul)plier in terms of Sarla Verma is ‘17’. Accordingly, the total loss of dependency is computed as: ₹21,840 × 17 = ₹3,71,280/- 12. In addi)on to the loss of dependency, the claimants are en)tled to compensa)on under conven)onal heads. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 1995, a reasonable amount of ₹15,000/- each Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1874-CII-2026; CM-1875-CII-2026 in/and FAO-1486-2000 (O&M) is awarded towards loss of filial consor)um to both claimants. Further, ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 13. Thus, the total compensa)on is computed as follows:
Loss of dependency: ₹3,71,280/-
Filial consor)um (₹15,000 × 2): ₹30,000/-
Conven)onal heads (₹5,000 × 2): ₹10,000/-
Total: ₹4,11,280/- 14. AAer deduc)ng the amount already awarded by the Tribunal i.e. ₹1,72,000/-, the enhanced compensa)on works out to ₹2,39,280/-, which is rounded off to ₹2,40,000/-. 15. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are held en)tled to enhanced compensa)on of ₹2,40,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe))on )ll realiza)on. 16. The liability to pay the compensa)on shall remain joint and several upon the respondents. The enhanced compensa)on shall be disbursed equally amongst the claimants/ their respec)ve LRs. 17. Pending miscellaneous applica)ons, if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 01, 2026 Nee)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document