IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 21.01.2026 Pronounced on : 23.01.2026 Uploaded on : 23.01.2026 Kamlesh Kaur and Others … Appellants Versus Jaspal Kaur & Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate and Mr. Puneet Munjal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Jayant Chauhand, Advocate and Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 02.02.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby compensation to the tune of ₹4,32,000/- has been awarded on account of the death of Purshotam Dass @ Babli in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.03.1998.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 25.03.1998, the deceased Purshotam Dass @ Babli was hit by a Maruti Van bearing registration No. CH-01-Q-4824, driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained serious injuries and, despite medical treatment at Ashok Sarwal Hospital, Ambala and thereafter at PGI Chandigarh, succumbed to the injuries on 29.03.1998. FIR No.25 dated 29.03.1998 was registered at Police Station Lalru. The deceased was stated to be about 35 years of age and was running an industrial unit under the name and style of “M/s Kashmiri Industries”. He was an income tax assessee and a partner in the said concern. The claimants, namely the widow and minor children, pleaded that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family. The owner, driver and insurer contested the claim. The insurer raised objections regarding alleged breach of policy conditions and validity of driving licence.

3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The deceased was held to be earning approximately ₹3,600/- per month, dependency was assessed at ₹28,800/- per annum, multiplier of 15 was applied and a total compensation of ₹4,32,000/- was awarded along with interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is manifestly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing the assessment of just compensation. The learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at a much lower figure despite documentary and oral evidence showing that the deceased was an income tax assessee and partner in an industrial unit. Further, learned counsel argued that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and not in consonance with the age of the deceased. Learned counsel for appellants also submitted that the amounts awarded towards loss of consortium and last rites are unrealistically low and that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation under other mandatory conventional heads. Additionally, no addition towards future prospects was made. On these grounds, it was urged that the impugned award calls for enhancement so as to grant just, fair and reasonable compensation to the claimants.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company supports the award and submits that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. It is contended that income of the deceased was not proved by cogent documentary evidence and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. Therefore, did not warrant any interference by this Court.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complete records. On due consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, particularly on the issue of negligence and fastening of liab