The court confirmed that the compensation for wrongful death must reflect just and reasonable standards without profit motives, emphasizing dependency evidence in deductions.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.13,62,756/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 14.12.2022 passed in MACP Case No.26 dated 03.08.2021 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The original Claim Petition had initially been filed by the 60-year-old widow, 37-year-old married son, 35-year-old married son and 33-year-old married son of deceased Joginder Singh, who was 64 years 11 months 24 days old at the time of accident. During the pendency of the Claim Petition, claimant no.1 namely, Manjit Kaur 60-year-old widow of deceased Joginder Singh had expired; and the claimants No.2, 3 and 4 were brought in as LRs of the claimant No.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Joginder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 06.07.2021 at about 8:45 am due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA Pick-up bearing registration No.RJ-13-GA-8336 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The aforesaid compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.28,517/- per month. It is submitted that the appellants had proven on record that the deceased was running a Kiryana Shop from which he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.38,517/- per month.

4. Moreover, deduction of 50% has been wrongly made. As the claimants No.2, 3 and 4 although major married sons of the deceased, who are residing with the deceased, were entitled to compensation. Furthermore, only Rs.1,32,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium to appellants, whereas it should be Rs.1,78,000/- as the deceased had left behind four claimants at the time of his death. Interest should be 12%. Learned counsel accordingly prays for enhancement of compensation.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Law Finder Doc ID # 2693672 (SC); Babita Singh @ Singha vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others , Law Finder Doc ID # 2432568 and judgment of this Court in FAO-1745-2022 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kulwant Kaur & Others decided on 10.01.2025.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants.

7. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased had retired from PSPCL and was drawing pension of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was pleaded by the appellants in the Claim Petition that deceased was also running a Kiryana Shop at the village from which he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove their case, the claimants had produced CW1 Manpreet Singh, who had proved on record the copy of Pension Order (Ex.C3), attested copy of Salary Details (Ex.C4), attested copy of Bank Passbook of the deceased (Ex.C5) from which it was evident that the deceased was drawing pension of Rs.28,517/- per month. Contention of the claimants that deceased was also earning R