226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 Gopi Ram & Ors ... Appellant(s)

Versus Rampal & Anr ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Ms. Sunita Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-20858-CII-2025

1. This is an application for fixing an actual date of hearing in the main case.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on Board today itself.

CM-8151-CII-2011

3. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of delay of 135 days in refiling the appeal is allowed and the delay of 135 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-8152-CII-2011

4. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of delay of 164 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 10.08.2009 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.03.2007.

6. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

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

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹4,500/-

1 Monthly Income ₹4,500/-

1 Monthly Income ₹4,500/-

1 Monthly Income ₹4,500/-

1 Monthly Income ₹4,500/-

1 Monthly Income ₹4,500/-

Interest 8% per annum

8. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that she does not challenge the deduction as applied by the Tribunal. She, however, states that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side inasmuch as Sh. Rajnarain Dube, Proprietor of M/s Raj Enterprises Company, Rajeev Nagar, Gurgaon, who was the employer of the deceased, had stepped into the witness box as PW6 and had produced on record wage slip as Ex.PW6/B which shows the payment of ₹1,808/- for the period of 10 days of work.Learned counsel would contend that if the monthly income is calculated on the basis of the wage slip, the same comes to ₹5,424/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal has not made any addition towards future prospects and has wrongly applied a multiplier of 13. It is the contention that as the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of the accident, hence, an addition of 40% and a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded under the conventional headsas well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of her contentions, she 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]

9. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would contend that the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed and that if the income is taken as ₹1,808/- for the period of 10 days and is multiplied by 25 working days, the same comes to ₹4,500/-. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no amount is payable to the brother of the deceased towards loss of consortium.

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

11. Admittedly, no appeal has bee