IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1569-2019 (O&M)

with XOBJC-78-2021(O&M)

Reserved on: 12.01.2026 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 Uploaded on: 23.01.2026 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. …..Appellant Vs.

KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the respondents-claimants/Cross-Objectors.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed at the instance of Insurance Company, prayer has been made for setting aside of the decision dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), whereby, Rs. 56,54,524/- along with pendente lite interest @ 9% per annum was awarded as compensation to respondent No.1 to 4/claimants; whereas, in this appeal, cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 151 CPC have also been filed at the instance of respondents. No. 1 to 4/cross-objectors seeking enhancement/modification of the award passed by the Tribunal.

FACTS

2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 being legal representatives of deceased, filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 crore along with interest on account of death of Prem Chand in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 03.08.2017, while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5/driver.

3. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5, the driver of the offending vehicle. Consequently, the Tribunal held the appellant along with respondents No. 5 & 6 to be jointly and severally liable, and awarded compensation in the following manner:-

S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)

1. Gross monthly salary Rs. 50,551/-

2. Deduction of Income Tax Rs. 1,500/-

3. Net Income Rs. 49,051/- 4. Deduction towards personal expenses (1/4) Rs. 36,789/- 5. Add 15% future prospects Rs. 42,307/-

6. Annual Dependency (Rs. 42,307 x 12) Rs. 5,07,684/-

7. Multiplier (11) Rs. 55,84,524/-

8. Loss of Estate Rs. 40,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium Rs. 15,000/- 10. Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-

Total Compensation Rs. 56,54,524/-

4. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company, for setting aside the award to the extent of reduction of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal; whereas the cross objections were filed by respondent No. 1 to 4/cross-objectors, praying for enhancement of compensation.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal was legally unsustainable, been rendered in disregard of the settled principles governing assessment of compensation. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in applying an incorrect multiplier of 11 despite the deceased having attained the age of 55 years, whereas in view of settled law, a multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied, particularly when the deceased was to retire within three years. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal wrongly treated major children as dependents without any cogent evidence of dependency and, consequently made an erroneous deduction of only 1/4^th towards personal and living expenses, whereas a deduction of 50% was warranted as only the widow and mother could be considered dependents. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to deduct income tax while assessing the income and future prospects of the deceased and awarded a conditional rate of interest, which was impermissible in law. He concluded his arguments by submitting that the impugned award being contrary to the evidence on record and settled legal principles was liable to be set