IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Mithilesh Devi and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Suresh Chander and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K.Panwar, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.15,61,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 28.09.2022 passed in MACP Case No. 151 dated 12.04.2019 filed by the appellants under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 6 claimants are the 48-year-old widow; 27-year-old son; 25-year-old son; 22- year-old son; 20-year-old daughter; and 18-year-old son of the deceased Pramod Kumar, who was approximately 50 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-Pramod Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.02.2019 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Trailer bearing registration No.RJ 32 GB 7141 (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 above said compensation was awarded alongwith interest @

9% per annum to be paid by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.8,827 p.m. It is submitted that the appellants had proved on record that the deceased was a Security Guard. Therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.14,000/-p.m. It is submitted that even less amount has been awarded under the conventional heads. Deduction of 1/4th has been wrongly made. Nothing has been awarded towards transportation charges. Rate of interest should be 18% p.a. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed;

the Award be modified; and compensation be enhanced in above terms.

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

5. The pleaded case of the appellants is that the deceased was working as a Security Guard in Deep Heat Centre, Sector-6, Faridabad. However, appellants had failed to lead any evidence whatsoever in this regard. As such, learned Tribunal had correctly assessed income of the deceased as Rs.8,827/- p.m. on the basis of a Minimum Wage Notification dated 15.02.2019 w.e.f. 01.01.2019 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana. Age of the deceased was determined to be 50 years approximately on the basis of a Postmortem Report Ex.P11. Accordingly learned Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 25% towards future prospects; thereby calculating annual income of the deceased to be Rs.1,32,396/- (Rs.8,827 + Rs.2,206 = Rs.11,033 x 12). Multiplier of 13 has been correctly applied. Further, Tribunal has duly noted in para 18 of the Award that claimants No.2 to 6 are major children of the deceased; and claimants No.2 to 4, were also admitted to being gainfully employed. In this manner, deduction of 1/4th was correctly made towards personal expenses. Thus, Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner:-

6. From the above facts, it is clear that just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the said compensation. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” L