IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on 12.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on 20.01.2026 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

... APPELLANT VERSUS GURMEET KAUR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, ₹

who is aggrieved by the award of compensation to the tune of 57,22,125/- vide impugned award dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). The claimants- respondents had sought compensation on account of the death of Rajinder Kumar, who died in a motor vehicular accident dated 14.03.2023, caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving motorcycle bearing Registration No. HP-12-N-7545.

2. The claimants-respondent asserted that the deceased was aged about ₹

49 years and was working as a Government contractor, earning 50,000/- per month. On the basis of Income Tax Returns Ex. P-16 to Ex. P-18, the annual income of the deceased at the time of his death on 14.03.2023 was assessed by the ₹

learned Tribunal at 4,90,000/-, further an addition of 15% towards future prospects was made, and 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses, keeping in view that the deceased is survived by four dependents, namely his wife, son, and parents. Since the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of death, a multiplier of 13 was applied.

3. The Insurance Company has assailed the aforesaid award primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the annual income of ₹

the deceased at 4,90,000/-. The sole challenge raised by the appellant pertains to the determination of the income of the deceased. In support of its contention, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:

(1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yogesh Devi & Ors., 2012(2)

RCR (Civil) 536;

(2) Rani Gupta & Ors. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &

Ors., 2009 (13) SCC 498; and (3) State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors., 2003(4)

R.C.R. (Civil) 140.

4. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in treating the business income of the deceased as his personal income for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. According to the appellant, in cases where the deceased was running a business, the loss of dependency is confined only to the loss of managerial or supervisory skills, which alone is required to be quantified by the Tribunal, and reliance upon the income reflected in the Income Tax Returns is wholly misconceived.

5. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was running a transport business and owned three vehicles bearing registration Nos. HP-12-D- 8524, HP-93-8524, and HP-64-8424. Since, after the death of the deceased, the said vehicles have been inherited by the claimants-respondent and the business continues to operate, the entire business stands transferred to and is being run by the claimants-respondent. Consequently, it is urged that the only loss, if any, suffered by the claimants-respondent is on account of the managerial skills of the deceased be taken for determining loss of dependency and not the business income be taken entirely.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company has drawn attention to the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby the application for leading additional evidence filed by the appellant–Insurance Company was dismissed. The Insurance Company had sought to adduce additional evidence by placing on record the registration certificates of the aforesaid vehicles and certain other reports/documents.

7. Perusal of the said order reveals that, in reply to the said application, the claimants-respondents had asserted that the vehicles in question had already been sold, as the son of the deceased was unable to maintain and r