IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 14.11.2025 Pronounced on: 17.11.2025 MUNNI DEVI … APPELLANT VERSUS PARDEEP AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

CM-18232-CII-2022

1. This application has been filed for condonation of 130 days’ delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, which are found to be sufficient, the same is allowed. The delay of 130 days stands condoned.

FAO-5516-2022

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, vide Award dated 28.02.2022, whereby compensation was assessed on account of the death of Sonu in a motor vehicle accident dated 21.02.2018. BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that on 21.02.2018, Sonu, aged about 21 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No. HR-20S-7131, driven by Randhir. When they were proceeding from Kanwari towards Hisar and had reached near the brick-kiln, a dumper bearing registration No. HR-46D-4999, driven by respondent No. 1 Baljit Singh, came from the Hisar side at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and violently struck their motorcycle. Due to the impact, Sonu fell on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries, particularly head injuries. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Hisar, and thereafter referred to Agroha Medical College, but despite medical care he succumbed on 22.02.2018. FIR No. 67 dated 21.02.2018 was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC at Police Station, Sadar Hisar. The post-mortem report also confirmed that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained in the accident. The appellant–mother filed the claim petition seeking compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/-.

3. The learned Tribunal, after examining the testimony of Randhir (PW2), FIR, site plan, mechanical reports, and charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. Negligence was held proved as the dumper had come onto the wrong side and struck the motorcycle with force. However, while computing compensation, the learned Tribunal disregarded the appointment letter (Ex. P14) and supporting documents related to the deceased’s recruitment in the Department of Posts. The learned Tribunal observed that as the deceased had not yet physically joined the post, the joining letter could not be relied upon. It, therefore, assessed the income notionally at ₹10,000/- per month treating him as privately employed. After applying multiplier of 18 and deducting personal expenses, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹15,93,700/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award suffers from serious infirmity in the computation of income. It is argued that the deceased had been duly selected for appointment as Postman/Mail Guard in the Department of Posts, as proved through the appointment letter (Ex. P14), the selection list, and other corroborating documents. The deceased had already commenced training pursuant to the said appointment, demonstrating that he had secured a permanent Government job carrying a fixed monthly salary of ₹28,145/-. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in discarding these documents without justification and in assessing the income at ₹10,000/- per month. It is urged that the multiplier, future prospects, and conventional heads ought to have been applied strictly in accordance with Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and