[109] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.11.2025 Jahur and another …Appellants versus Parveen and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate and Mr. Akash Patyal, Advocate for the appellants-claimants.

Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Claimants are in appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karnal, on account of death of their son-Mustafa in a motor vehicular accident dated

28.02.2018. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation, observing as under:-

“20. The question for determination is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for future prospects or not. In the present case, income of the deceased has been proved and it has also been established on record that the deceased was of the age of 21 years at the time of his death. Therefore, while drawing support from the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 (SC), the Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimants-petitioners are entitled to 40% addition in the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as the deceased was below the age of 40 to 50 years. Thus, on computation, the income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation is to be taken as ₹1,01,976/- (₹8498/- x 12) per annum. Exemption stipulated for income tax during the relevant year was ₹2,50,000/-, and as such no tax was payable. Therefore, by addition of 40% to ₹1,01,976/-, his income is taken as ₹1,42,766/- (₹1,01,976/- +

₹40,790/-) per annum.

21. The other question for determination is as to what amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses to arrive at multiplicand. It is admitted fact that deceased was bachelor. Had the deceased been married, then, of course, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would have been based upon the number of the claimants/dependents, however, in the present case, the deceased, being bachelor had left legal heir, i.e. his parents and therefore, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as held in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October, 31, 2017. If 50% of the income is deducted from the annual income of the deceased, i.e. Rs.1,42,766/-, then it comes to Rs.71,383/-

(Rs.1,42,766 minus Rs.71,383/-).

22. As far as the dependency of the claimants is concerned, the claimants have pleaded in their claim petition that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased Mahabir. Perusal of the file shows that the claimants are parents of the deceased Mustafa. No contrary evidence was proved by the respondents. Thus, the claimants no.1 and 2, being the parents/legal heirs of the deceased Mustafa, are considered as dependents upon the income of the deceased Mahabir.

23. Since the deceased was in the age group of 21-25, the suitable multiplier will be '18'. On computation the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to ₹71,383/-x 18 = ₹12,84,894/-, to which an amount of 15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹15,000/-

towards funeral expenses should be added.

24. The total amount of compensation, thus, comes to ₹13,14,894/-(₹12,84,894/- + ₹15,000/- + ₹15,000/-)

The issue is, accordingly, answered in favour of petitioners.”

[2] Learned counsel for the appellants submits that nothing has been paid to the appellants for loss of parental consortium and even the amount awarded under the Head of loss of estate and the funeral expenses also need to be enhanced.

[3] Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company does not dispute in view of ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case(s) of ‘National Insurance Company versus Pranay Sethi’, 2017(4) PLR