IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.11.2025 Pronounced on: 13.11.2025 SHASHI SAPRA AND OTHERS … APPELLANTS VERSUS NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondents *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 20.08.2002 passed by the Motor ₹

Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, whereby the compensation of 13,72,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum was granted on account of death of Surender Kumar Sapra in a motor vehicular accident that took place on

21.05.1998.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the matter are that on 21.05.1998, Surender Kumar Sapra, employed as a Senior Store Keeper and, along with other colleagues, having completed his duties at Engineers India Limited (a Government of India undertaking) in connection with the Panipat Refinery Project, was returning to his residence in a Trax Jeep bearing registration No. HR-07B-4504, driven by Karan Singh. Upon reaching near Baburpur Mandi, close to the Ganda Nala bridge, a tractor bearing registration No. (HTC/6156) approached from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the Trax Jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided head-on with the tractor, causing the jeep to overturn, as a result of which Surender Kumar Sapra sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same the following day, i.e., 22.05.1998. The claimants ₹

thereafter instituted the present petition seeking compensation of 60,00,000/-

on account of death of Surender Kumar Sapra.

3. Upon an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles involved. It held that the drivers of the Trax Jeep and the tractor were equally at fault, a conclusion drawn primarily from the ocular testimonies of Ravinder @ Billu (PW-1) and Jasbir Singh (PW- 4), as well as from the FIR (Ex. RA) lodged promptly after the occurrence. For the purpose of assessing compensation, the Tribunal took the monthly income ₹

of the deceased to be 15,000/-, deducted one-third towards his personal and living expenses, applied the multiplier of 15, and computed the loss of ₹ ₹

dependency at 18,00,000/-. From this amount, a sum of 4,37,167/- (rounded ₹

to 4,38,000/-), received by the widow of deceased under the Group Personal Accident Scheme of the Department, was deducted, bringing the figure to ₹

13,62,000/-. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal further awarded ₹ ₹ ₹

2,500/- towards loss of estate, 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and 5,000/-

₹

towards loss of consortium, totalling 10,000/-. Accordingly, the overall ₹

compensation assessed and awarded to the claimants came to 13,72,000/-.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate. It is urged that the learned Tribunal failed to correctly assess the income of the deceased, despite cogent evidence establishing that he was drawing a substantially higher salary as a Senior Store Keeper in a Government of India undertaking. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellants were entitled to addition towards future prospects and that the appropriate multiplier, corresponding to the age of the deceased, ought to have been applied. It is further argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses when the deceased had four dependents, and that the correct deduction should have been one-fourth. Additionally, it is submitted that the amount received under the Group Personal Accident Scheme was wrongly deducted, as such benefits cannot be set off against the statutory compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The sums awarded under the conventional heads are also asserted to b