IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BATERI DEVI AND ANOTHER ….Appellants Vs.

VIRENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 16,09,428/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization on account of death of Rahul in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 25.05.2020.

FACTS

2. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 crore, on account of death of Rahul in a motor vehicular accident which took place on

25.05.2020 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver.

3. After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver, holding respondent No.3/Insurance Company liable and awarded compensation in the following manner:-

S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)

1. Annual Income of deceased Rs. 1,25,352/- 2. Future Prospects (40%) Rs. 1,75,492/-

3. Deduction (1/2^nd) Rs. 87,746/-

4. Multiplier (18) Rs. 15,79,428/-

5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-

Total Compensation Rs. 16,09,428/-

4. Being aggrieved of the award dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts, as specified in the claim petition, about the manner of the accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver recorded in favour of the appellants/claimants by the learned Tribunal, being not under challenge, are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the impugned award dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from grave illegality, material irregularity and erroneous appreciation of evidence insofar as the assessment of compensation is concerned. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the age, future prospects and actual income of the deceased besides wrongly applying the deduction of ½ towards personal expenses instead of settled norm of 1/3^rd despite clear dependency., and erroneously assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages ignoring cogent and unrebutted evidence on record. Furthermore, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted under conventional heads was not in consonance with the settled law, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decision on the subject.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

8. In the present case, in view of the statement of Bateri Devi (mother of deceased) who appeared as PW-1, it was deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by working as a mason (Raj MistrI), however, no documentary evidence to support the same was placed before the Tribunal in this regard, thus