IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Reena and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Navdeep and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate for the appellant through V.C.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-13935-CII-2024 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant No.1, the same is allowed and delay of 31 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO-3819-2024 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.24,45,810/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 05.04.2024 passed in MACP Case No. 10 dated

07.01.2022 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 8 claimants are the 30-year-old widow, minor son; parents; and 4 married sisters of the deceased Amit Kumar, who was

34½ 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- Amit Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.09.2021 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Pajero bearing registration No. HR-14M-0077 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven and owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent No.2. The above said compensation was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents No.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits that compensation paid to the appellants is liable to be enhanced as income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.10,629/- per month. It is submitted that the appellants had proved on record that the deceased was working as Senior Officer in India Infoline Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as “IIFL”) and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/-. Appellants had produced Abhishek Sharma, Branch Manager, IIFL, Jind, who had produced the summoned record pertaining to employment of Amit Kumar. Learned counsel contends that in the said circumstance, learned Tribunal was in patent error in assessing income of the deceased as only Rs.10,629/- per month. Further, ld. counsel very fairly concedes that income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.60,000/- p.m. from managing and cultivating 12 acres of land, is not being pressed in view of the fact that the said income is now being derived by the claimants. It is submitted that nothing has been paid for loss of estate.

4. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensation be enhanced in above terms.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

6. A perusal of the record of the case shows that the learned Tribunal has already awarded compensation more than what was payable to the claimants as per law. It was the case of the appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Senior Officer in IIFL office at Jind and drawing monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. Appellants had also pleaded that besides the above, deceased was also earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by providing Finance Consultancy Services to the general public; and also earning Rs.60,000/- p.m. from agriculture; and thereby deceased was earning total amount of Rs.95,000/- p.m.

7. As noted above, appellants have examined PW3 Abhishek Sharma, Branch Manager, IIFL, Jind who had produced a