JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) -

CM-7296-CII-2022

1. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of delay of 1030 days in refiling the appeal is allowed and the delay of 1030 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-7297-CII-2022

2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay of 01 day in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-2577-2022

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') vide the impugned award dated 07.02.2019 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14.09.2016.

4. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, he contends that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as Rs.10,300/- per month as it was proved on the record that the deceased was paying a monthly installment of 739,376/- towards the loan taken for the purchase of a truck and personal loan. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has referred to registration certificate of the truck (Ex.P11) as per which the truck was registered in the name of the deceased. Learned counsel has further referred to Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which are the statement of accounts showing the payment of the instalments. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778] to contend that the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was regarding an accident which had taken place in 2014 and wherein the deceased was paying an EMI of Rs.11,550/- per month and the income had been assessed as Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel has further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly applied deduction to the extent of 50% inasmuch as there is no evidence on the record that the claimant-appellant Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately or that they were not dependent upon their father and were fully independent, hence, 1/3rd deduction would be applicable in the present case. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors." [2025 (2) RCR (Civil) 48]. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head loss of consortium' are also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed as Rs.10,300/- per month in the absence of any proof of income and that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

8. I have