SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
VARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

FAO-3446-2021 (O&M) -1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

272-2 FAO-3446-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 29.01.2026

Harpreet Kaur and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Varinder Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate for the respondent

No.2 and 3-PRTC.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,39,600/- awarded by the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “the

learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 05.08.2019 passed in MACP Case No.

162 dated 16.07.2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 2 claimants before the learned

Tribunal are 47-year-old mother; and 54-year-old father of the deceased

Harminder Singh, who was 23 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the

basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the

deceased-Harminder Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in

DIVYANSHI

2026.01.30 19:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

FAO-3446-2021 (O&M) -2 -

a motor vehicular accident that took place on 30.05.2018 due to the rash

and negligent driving of a Bus bearing registration No.PB-10DR-1115

(hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1;

and owned by respondents No.2 and 3. The Tribunal awarded the above

compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum. Respondents No. 1 to

3 were held liable to pay the said compensation jointly and severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of

compensation by submitÝng that income of the deceased has been taken

on the lower side as only Rs.8,000/-p.m. as that of an unskilled worker. It

is submitted that it was the clear case of the appellants before the learned

Tribunal that deceased was a student of B.A.Hons; and was also an

agriculturist alongwith his father. It is contended that therefore, income of

the deceased ought to have been taken as that of a skilled worker. It is

further submitted that future prospects, multiplier and deduction have

been incorrectly made and, nothing has been awarded by way of

consortium to the appellants. It is accordingly prayed that the present

appeal be allowed; and the compensation be enhanced as above.

4. Per contra, ld. counsel for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 oppose

submissions of the appellants and submit that the impugned Award

suffers from no infirmity as the compensation awarded to the appellants is

just and fair. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have

heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find some merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

DIVYANSHI

2026.01.30 19:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

FAO-3446-2021 (O&M) -3 -

6. It has been contended by the appellants that deceased was a

student of B.A. Hons from DAV University, Jalandhar and was helping his

father in agriculture and therefore, his income ought to have been taken

as that of a skilled worker. However, perusal of the record of the case

shows that no document whatsoever has been produced by the

appellants to prove their above said contentions. Although it has been

emphatically stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the

deceased was a student of B.A. Hons. However, on Court queries, learned

counsel for the appellants is unable to deny that no Roll No., Admission

No., Certification or some other documentary evidence was produced by

the appellants to prove this fact. It is further pleaded that deceased was

doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Again, the

appellants have led no documentary evidence to show that deceased was

earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Be that as it may, even if it is ass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top