242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 Naseeb Kaur & Anr ... Appellant(s)

Versus Jagmeet Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s)

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

None for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.4.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-7327-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.

FAO-63-2014

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 13.08.2013 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 28.12.2010.

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

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

4 Multiplier - 18 ₹6,48,000/- [₹36,000 x 18]

5 Funeral expenses ₹10,000/-

Total Compensation ₹6,58,000/

Interest 7.5%

6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that she does not challenge the deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. She, however, states that the deceased in the present case was a student of B.A.M.S. (2^nd year) and, hence, the income as assessed by the Tribunal i.e. ₹4,500/- per month is on the lower side. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40% inasmuch as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is 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 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]

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal i.e. ₹4,500/- per month and that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

8. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 despite the counsel being informed by the Registry via email.

9. Respondent No.2-owner herein has also filed an appeal being FAO-5856-2013 challenging the recovery rights. In this appeal recovery of the award amount was stayed vide order dated 04.12.2013.

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

11. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.

12. In the present case, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side deserves to be accepted. The deceased, in the present case, was 22 years of age and a student of B.A.M.S. (2^nd year) in Saint Sahara Ayurvedic Medical College, Bathinda. His mark sheet of First Professional Examination in Nov-Dec 2009 was produced on r