265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.01.2026 Rajesh and Another ... Appellants Versus Sandeep and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Prafful Rana, Advoate for Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 04.10.2017 on account of death of Sumit (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

23.08.2016.

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 :

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the deduction and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as per the minimum wage for an unskilled worker i.e. ₹6,000/- per month inasmuch as the deceased in the present case was a young boy of 20 years and had completed his 12^th Class and had a very bright future ahead hence the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wage of a skilled worker which was ₹9,342/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further contend that though the Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹3,24,000/- on account of loss of future prospects @ 50% however, disbursal of the same was stayed subject to decision of a reference by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors. [2015 (4) SCC (Civil) 335]. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 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. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal 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. In the present case, the deceased was a young boy of 20 years of age and had completed 12^th Class. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹6,000/- per month which in the opinion of this Court is erroneous inasmuch as admittedly the deceased was a young boy of 20 years of age and had also completed his 12^th Class. Hence, his income ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wage as applicable to a skilled worker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2317 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.6428 of 2023 decided 11.02.2025], while relying on Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) R