##PAGE1##

117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6381-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 28.01.2026

Manjeet and Others ... Appellants

Versus

Naresh Kumar and Another ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-21931-CII-2023

1. Notice in the application for condonation of delay of 135 days in

filing the present appeal.

2. Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice

on behalf of the Insurance Company and states that he has no objection if the

delay is condoned.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The

delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. However, the

claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing

the present appeal.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main

appeal is taken on Board today itself.

FAO-6381-2023 (O&M)

5. Challenge in present appeal is only to the quantum of

JITENDER KUMAR

2026.01.29 10:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

FAO-6381-2023 -2-

compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.03.2023 on

account of death of Raju (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor

vehicle accident on 30.12.2021.

6. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are

not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

7. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹9,803/-

2 Annual Income ₹1,17,636/- [₹9,803 x 12]

Income after addition of ₹1,47,036/-

3 future prospects @ 25%

Income after applying the ₹98,024/-

4 deduction of 1/3^rd

5 Multiplier - 13 ₹12,74,312/- [₹98,024 x 13]

6 Loss of estate ₹16,500/-

7 Funeral expenses ₹16,500/-

8 Loss of spousal consortium ₹40,000/-

₹13,47,312/- (rounded off to

Total Compensation ₹13,47,300/-)

Interest 7.5%

8. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

he does not challenge the deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as

assessed by the Tribunal. He however states that the income of the deceased

has been assessed on the lower side as the deceased was earning ₹18,000/- per

month since he was employed as a sweeper with KS 31 Restaurant. It is further

the contention that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads

as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in consonance with the

JITENDER KUMAR

2026.01.29 10:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

FAO-6381-2023 -3-

law laid down by 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]

9. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance

Company would contend that income of the deceased has rightly been

assessed in the absence of any evidence that he was employed as a sweeper

with KS 31 Restaurant and was drawing a salary of ₹18,000/- per month.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has further

contended that no salary slip, attendance record, bank account statement or

income tax return was produced on record to show the salary of the deceased.

It is further the contention that sufficient amount of compensation has already

been awarded and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

10. Heard.

11. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned

counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction, multiplier and future

prospects as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.

Though it has been claimed by the claimant-appellants that the deceased was

earni