227-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.01.2026 RAJ RANI .... Appellant VERSUS SUKHBIR AND ANR .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 23.02.2015. The claim petition was filed by the mother of the deceased minor, who was 14 years of age at the time of the accident. Both the mother and the minor child were pillion riders on the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05J-0990.

2. 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.

3. Delay in filing the appeal stood already condoned vide order dated 19.10.2022.

4. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

compensation :

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding notional income on account of death of Mohan who was 14 years old at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant 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. Learned counsel would further contend that in the present case also since the deceased was 14 years of age, his income ought to have been assessed as that of a skilled person rather than assessing the same notionally, which was around ₹5,600 per month at the time of the accident. 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 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-appellant has relied upon the judgments 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]. Learned counsel contends that it has been held to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 10% on the ground that the deceased was triple riding on the motorcycle. Learned counsel would contend that at best it can be treated as a case of a traffic violation. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle from behind and there was no contribution on the part of any of the riders in the accident. It is further contended that no issue was framed by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, yet negligence has been attributed to the deceased to the extent of 10%. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Anjana Narayan Kamble & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. [2023 (2) CivilLJ 727] and M. Nithya & Ors. vs. SBI General Insurance Com