281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision : 12.01.2026

Manju & Anr ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Kumar & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Service of respondent Nos.1 and 2 dispensed with

vide order dated 03.09.2019.

Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 05.12.2018 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred

on 27.05.2017.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are

not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹11,800/-

2 Annual Income ₹1,41,600/- [₹11,800 x 12]

3 Deduction - 50% ₹70,800/- [₹1,41,600 - ₹70,800]

4 Multiplier - 18 ₹12,74,400/- [₹70,800 x 18]

5 Loss of estate ₹15,000/- 6 Funeral expenses ₹15,000/-

Total Compensation ₹13,04,400/

Interest 7%

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the income, deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40% inasmuch as the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side inasmuch as the minimum wage for an unskilled worker was ₹8,280/- per month. Learned counsel has further contended that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the impugned award. Hence, the arguments of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, deserves to be rejected. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the income, deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.The Tribunal has not made any addition towards future prospects. The deceased was admittedly 20 years of age, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% addition is made towards future prospects. Further, no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimants (parents and sisters of the deceased) would also be entitled to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is