IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2216-2014 (O&M)

XOBJC-112-CII-2015

Reserved on: 28.11.2025

Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

Date of uploading: 24.12.2025

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD.

......Appellant

Vs.

AFSANA AND ORS.

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate appellant-Insurance

Company.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

for respondents No.1 to 4.

----

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-12808-CII-2015

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the cross

objections in the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the cross-objector contends that the climants-cross-objectors would not ask interest for the delayed period.

3. Notice in the application.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of appellant-Insurance Company and contends that he has no objection if the application is allowed.

5. For the reasons mention in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.

6. The delay of 6 days in filing the cross-objections in the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-2216-2014 (O&M) XOBJC-112-CII-2015

1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of the appeal filed by the insurance company as well as cross objections filed by the respondents No.1 to 4-claimants.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- insurance company against the award dated 11.10.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nuh (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 were awarded compensation of Rs.29,76,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation, on the ground that compensation awarded is on higher side.

3. The present cross-objection has been preferred by respondents No.1 to 4/cross-objector/claimant against the award dated 11.10.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh for enhancement of compensation, granted to claimants to the tune of Rs.29,76,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of deceased-Maksood in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 07.03.2012.

4. 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 required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly took the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- per month, as there was no income tax return or documentary proof regarding the same. He further contends that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be modified as per latest law.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present cross-objections be allowed, present appeal be dismissed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of th