IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 05.12.2025

Pronounced on: 24.12.2025

Uploaded on:24.12.2025

POOJA ......Appellant(s)

Vs

SALIM KHAN AND ORS. ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-4480-CII-2024 & CM-4481-CII-2024

Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the applicant-

appellant, is for condonation of delay of 34 days in re-filing and 285 days in filing

the present appeal.

Notices in both the applications were issued on 20.08.2025.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance

Company has opposed the prayers made in the applications.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause for explaining the delay in re-filing and filing of the appeal is

made out. As such, the delay of 34 and 285 days in re-filing as well as filing the present appeal is condoned. The applications are allowed.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.26,85,880/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/proforma respondents along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization on account of death of Pritam in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 18.11.2020.

[2]. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT [3]. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the award by submitting that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs.11,600/- per month, ignoring cogent oral and documentary evidence showing that the deceased apart from working as an Operator at Om Enterprises C/o Home India Pvt. Ltd., Khushkhera, was also engaged in agricultural work as well as dairy farming and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding future prospects to the extent of 40%, which was on the lower side considering the age, health, vocation and stable income of the deceased. Furthermore, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted under conventional heads was not in consonance with the settled law, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decisions on the subject.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY [4]. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION [5]. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paperbook of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [6]. In the present case, the appellant asserted that the deceased was employed as an Operator with Om Enterprises, C/o Home India Pvt. Ltd., ₹

Khushkhera, and was drawing a monthly salary of 20,000/-. It was contended that this fact stood duly established through the testimony of Bhim Singh, HR and Accountant of the said establishment, who appeared as PW-4 and proved the salary statements of the deceased, marked as Ex. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/D. It was further pleaded that, in addition to his salaried employment, the deceased was also engaged in agricultural pursuits and was operating a milk dairy, thereby earning an ₹

additional income of 20,000/- per month. However, since only sala