##PAGE1##

223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO-65-2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 28.01.2026

Munni & Ors ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Veer Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the

impugned award dated 15.10.2015 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred

on 15.06.2014.

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 :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹6,000/-

2 Annual Income ₹72,000/- [₹6,000 x 12]

3 Deduction - 1/3^rd ₹48,000/- [₹72,000 - ₹24,000]

4 Multiplier - 13 ₹6,24,000/- [₹48,000 x 13]

YOGESH SHARMA

2026.01.29 09:30

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

FAO-65-2016 (O&M) 2

5 Loss of consortium ₹25,000/-

Total Compensation ₹6,49,000/

Interest 7.5%

4. It is apt to note that the appeal being FAO-1964-2016 filed by

the owner and driver (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) was allowed by this

Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 and it was held that the liability to pay the

compensation would be that of the Insurance Company (respondent No.3

herein).

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

he does not challenge the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal.

He, however, states that in the absence of any proof of age, the Tribunal erred

in not relying on the Post-mortem Report (Ex.P1) wherein the age of the

deceased was mentioned as 32 years. It is further the contention that on mere

conjectures and surmises, the age of the deceased was taken to be between 46-

50 years. Learned counsel would further contend that keeping in view the age

of the deceased as 32 years, a multiplier of 16 would be applicable instead of

13 and further an addition of 40% ought to have been made towards future

prospects, which was not done by the Tribunal. It is further the contention of

the learned counsel that in the present case there are nine claimants being

widow, father and seven children and, hence, a deduction of 1/5^th ought to

have been applied instead of 1/3^rd. It is further the contention of the learned

counsel that no compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads

and that the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is also

not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In

support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport

YOGESH SHARMA

2026.01.29 09:30

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

FAO-65-2016 (O&M) 3

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]

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance

Company would contend that the age of the deceased has rightly been assessed

by the Tribunal between 46-50 years keeping in view the fact that the age of

one of his sons was 20 years. It is further the contention of the learned counsel

that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the

present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. 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-appell