1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:27.01.2026 Jagan Nath and Another ...Appellants Versus Manjit Singh and Others ...Respondents FAO-4216-2003 (O&M)

Date of decision:27.01.2026 Ramesh Kumar and Another ...Appellants Versus Manjit Singh and Others ...Respondents FAO-4288-2003 (O&M)

Date of decision:27.01.2026 Bhagwan Dass and Another ...Appellants Versus Manjit Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for appellants. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate with Mr. Brij Bhusan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being parents of deceased – Sunil Kumar, Deepak Kumar, Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.02.1997, on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of Tata-407 bearing registration No.DDL-1189.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 28.07.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which the appellants-claimants were found entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- each in their respective claim petitions, the appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same is not accordance with their entitlement and is insufficient compensation.

3. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and there is no appeal or cross-objection preferred by respondents to challenge manner of accident, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed for the sake of brevity.

4. The Tribunal in the respective claim petitions had awarded the following compensation:

Total loss determined & awarded Rs. 1,25,000/-

compensation

5. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants have sought enhancement in compensation on following grounds that:

● Income of deceased was not assessed. Keeping in view facts that deceased students were studying in reputed school, were around 13/14 years of age at the time of accident and had bright future, income of deceased ought to have been determined.

● Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency. Future prospects to the extent 40% of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased were

13/14 years of age at the time of accident.

● No multiplier was applied by learned Tribunal. In view of age of deceased the multiplier of ‘18’ ought to have been granted.

● Appropriate compensation amount needs to be granted under the heads loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate in accordance with law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-State has argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. Learned Tribunal has assessed and granted consolidated compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- in each of the claim petition. Deceased students were going to school when their school bus met with accident and 10 out of 38 children had died when their bus had fallen in canal on account of said accident. These facts show that they had bright future, therefore, award of compensation without assessing notional income of deceased on some justified basis cannot be upheld. Learned Tribunal ought to have determined the income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable to unskilled workman in absence of any income proof and ought to have determined compensation after applying future prospects, multiplier and by deducting personal expenses.

8. Admittedly, the age of deceased were 13/14 years old at the time of accident and he is survived by his parents. The notional income of Rs.1,548/- per month, equivalent to minimum wages payable to unskilled worker in 1997 needs to be taken in case of minor aged 13/14 years as was held in Devendra K