257 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.01.2026 BHANU AND ANR .... Appellants VERSUS VAKEEL @ SATTU AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-8132-CII-2016

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-2288-2016

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.10.2015.

4. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

5. The deceased, in the present case, was a minor child, namely, Manjeet, aged 6 years, who died in an accident which took place on 28.09.2014. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a consolidated amount on account of death of Manjeet who was 6 years old at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238] and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27] contends that though cases of injury, however, in both the cases a minor was involved and the income was assessed as that of a skilled worker and a multiplier of 18 was also applied. It is further the contention that no addition has been made towards future prospects. Learned counsel would still further contend that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head loss of consortium are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma &

Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 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].

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount had already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that in case a multiplier method is to be applied then deduction would have to be made.

8. Heard.

9. In the present case the deceased was 6 years of age and the Tribunal had granted a consolidated amount. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as that of a skilled worker deserves to be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), while relying upon the case of Kajal (supra), assessed the notional income of a 7- year-old child, who had received injuries, on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [2025 (1) TAC 730], yet again relying on Baby Sakshi Greola (supra), awarded the compensation in the case of a 6-year-old child, who had die