##PAGE1##

FAO NO-3924-2023(O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO NO–3924-2023

Reserved on: 28.01.2026

Pronounced on: 04.02.2026

BHATERI AND ANOTHER ..….Appellants

Vs.

SHRI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS ..….Respondents

1. The date when the judgment was reserved 28.01.2026

2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 04.02.2026

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 04.02.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full

pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not

and reasons thereof. applicable.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate

for respondent no.3- Insurance Company.

******

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award

dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Rewari (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 14,84,920/-

was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its

realization on account of death of Pardeep @ Chhotiya(aged 23) in a motor

vehicular accident, that occurred on 01.11.2020.

2. Since the sole issue for determination in the present appeal is

confined to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal,

SANJAY GUPTA

2026.02.04 18:30

I attest to the accuracy and 1

integrity of this document

FAO NO-3924-2023(O&M)

a detailed narration of the facts of the case is omitted herein for the sake of

brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the

award by submitting that the deceased was an agriculturist earning

approximately Rs 18,000/- per month and the ld. Tribunal erred in

categorizing the deceased as an unskilled labourer and arbitrarily assessed

his income at Rs.9,458/- per month. Furthermore, it was submitted that the

amount of compensation granted under conventional heads was not in

consonance with the settled law and multiplier applied as well as the rate of

annual interest awarded was also towards the lower side. Ld. Counsel thus

prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decision on the

subject.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.

3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the

negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of

the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal

called for no interference.

DISCUSSION

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellants.

SANJAY GUPTA

2026.02.04 18:30

I attest to the accuracy and 2

integrity of this document

FAO NO-3924-2023(O&M)

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. In the present case, appellants/claimants asserted that

deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month,

however, they failed to lead any cogent evidence with regard to his income

or of his employment. Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of

deceased @ Rs.9458/- on notional basis relying upon basic wages as per

the Minimum Wages of an unskilled person in the year 2020. In the humble

opinion of this Hon’ble Court, Ld. Tribunal in the absence of any evidence

regarding the income, expenses or deceased been involved in agricultural

work has correctly assessed the monthly income to the tune of Rs. 9,458/-.

7. The learned Tribunal deducted 50% of the income towards

personal and living expenses of the deceased in accordance with the law

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma

and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,” reported as

2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, wherein it was held that in case the deceased was

a bachelor and the claimants were the parents, the deduction