IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYNA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 01.12.2025

Pronounced on: 18.12.2025

Uploaded on: 22.12.2025

SONIA AND OTHERS ……Appellants

Vs.

BALRAM AND OTHERS …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Lalit Kumar Narang, Advocate

for the appellants.

Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate

for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM No. 11247-CII of 2023

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

appellants, is for condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the appeal.

Notice in the present application was issued on 24.09.2025.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1& 2 and

respondent No.3/Insurance Company does not oppose to the prayer made in the

application.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the

same is allowed. The delay of 57 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for

brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 19,74,340/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization on account of death Manjeet in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 14.05.2019.

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 and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award by submitting that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,400/- per month by working as a salesman in Bhardwaj Automobiles, Panipat. It was further contended that the said fact was conclusively established through the depositions of appellant/claimant No.1, examined as PW-6, and Sushil Kumar (PW-11), proprietor of Bhardwaj Automobiles. The said evidence remained wholly unrebutted, as the respondents failed to lead any evidence in contrary to that. Consequently, it was urged that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income at ₹10,000/-. He further argued that the application of multiplier of 17 was incorrect and the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 18 and even the deduction towards personal expenses was also on the higher side. 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 decision on the subject.

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS No. 1 & 2

4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 & 2 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.

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No. 3/

INSURANCE COMPANY

5. 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

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

7. In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased- Manjeet, at the time of accident was 25 years of age. He was working as a Salesman at Bhardwaj Automobiles, Panipat and was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,4