IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2125-2003 (O&M)

Date of decision:30.01.2026 ROSHNI DEVI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 4-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

IOIN-FAO-2125-2003 Present IOIN has been placed before this Court by registry as present case records were destroyed in fire.

As per previous order dated 26.09.2025, copies of paper book has been supplied in the registry by the parties.

In view of the same, IOIN stands disposed of.

Main case is taken up on board today itself.

Main Case Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being the wife, minor sons and daughter of deceased-Brij Mohan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on

04.09.2000, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.3 while driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No.HR-46A-1215.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 08.01.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which the appellants-claimants were found entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-, the appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same is not accordance with their entitlement.

3. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross-objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity.

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

Income of deceased Rs.3,000/-

per month Deduction 1/3^rd Rs.2,000/-

(3,000-1,000)

Multiplier 13 Total loss of dependency Rs.3,12,000/-

(Rs.2,000/-X13X12)

Spousal consortium to Rs.5,000/-

claimant No.1 Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs.3,20,000/-

5. The sole grievance raised on behalf of the appellants-claimants pertains to the income of the deceased at the time of his death on 04.09.2000. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased had been appointed as a Purchase ₹

Manager in a firm on a monthly salary of 7,000/. However, before he could join the said post, he unfortunately expired. It was further contended that prior to his death, the deceased had been employed with M/s Ram Sarup Products Pvt. Ltd. since 1996 and had tendered his resignation w.e.f. 30.09.2000. Thus, he died prior to leaving his earlier employment and before joining the new firm.

6. In order to substantiate their claim, the appellants-claimants had examined PW-3, the employer with whom the deceased was working, as well as PW-4, an official from the firm where the deceased was to join after 30.09.2000. The learned Tribunal, after considering the testimonies of both the witnesses, concluded that in the absence of a counter-signature from the Labour Department, the salary certificate could not be relied upon. Consequently, the ₹

income of the deceased was assessed at 3,000/- per month.

7. On consideration, I find that the learned Tribunal erred in not accepting the income of the deceased as stated by PW-3. The testimony of PW- 3 has remained unrebutted and could not be impeached by the respondents in any manner. The counter-signatures of Labour Department officials on salary records are not mandated under the labour laws; such counter-signatures are ordinarily made only when an inspection of a factory or industrial unit is conducted by the Labour Department. In the present case, no such inspection had been carried out and, consequently, no counter-signatures were made on the records of the firm.

8. Therefore, merely because the firm’s records were not c