IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 08.01.2026

FAO-5397-2025(O&M)

Sunita Rani & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jaswinder Kumar & Others

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Naveen Mandhan, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate

for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-18158-CII-2025

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is

supported by affidavit of appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 87 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by claimants No.1, 2 and 4

seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.79,70,000/- awarded by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 03.03.2025 passed in Case No.61 dated 10.02.2020 filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 5 claimants are the 49-year-old widow, 26-year- old married daughter, 23-year-old son and parents of deceased Satish Chander Panchal, who was approximately 52 years old at the time of accident. Claimant No.3/23-year-old son and claimant No.5/72-year-old father of the deceased are pro-forma respondents No.4 and 5 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Satish Chander Panchal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.01.2020 due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor Trailer bearing temporary registration No.HR-67-2020-TR-4484C (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.80,229/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased had bright future ahead of him and he might have got promotion in the Department. Even consortium has been awarded only to claimant No.1 and not to the remaining claimants. The rate of interest is also on the lower side as only 7.5% per annum and the same should be at least 9%. Less amounts have been awarded under the loss of estate and funeral expenses. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced as above.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

6. Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as MCM/AC in Northern Railway, Government of India. As per the Salary Slips/Ex. P-7 produced by the appellants, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.91,904/- per month which included DA (Rs.9,673/-), HRA (Rs.13,656/-), Transport Allowance (Rs.4,212/-), NDA (Rs.2,663/-) and Travel Allowance (Rs.4,800/-). However, only HRA and DA paid to the deceased were to be included for the computation of his monthly salary. Therefore, after deducting the remaining allowances amounting to Rs.11,675/-, the monthly salary of the deceased came to Rs.80,229/-. I find no error in the same.

7. Further, age of the deceased was proved to be approximately 52 years on t