IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 FAO-5138-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 27.01.2026 United India Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Smt. Rajwanti & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Saurav Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 (through VC).

Ms. Riya Malik, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 10.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Claim Petition No.158 dated 07.04.2016 filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, has been allowed and claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.12,49,000/-. The two claimants are the widowed mother and major brother of deceased Surender. Widow of the deceased namely Reena was made pro-forma respondent No.4 before the learned Tribunal; and is pro-forma respondent No.5 before this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Surender had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 28.12.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration No.DL-1-LT-1177 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.3, owned by respondent No.4, and insured by the appellant. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents No.3 and 4 and the appellant were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that challenge to the impugned Award is only on the basis of quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted that as per the relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 01.07.2013, minimum wage admissible to an unskilled worker was Rs.5341.51/- rounded off to Rs.5350/- per month. Thus, income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as only Rs.5350/- per month. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has made an addition of 50% towards future prospects; whereas it was the own pleaded case of the claimants that the deceased was a labourer. Therefore, future prospects were liable to be added @ 40%. It is further submitted that deduction of 1/3^rd has been made; whereas the same should have been 50%. Learned counsel contends that by way of the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded the entire amount of compensation to the claimants and has awarded nothing to pro-forma respondent No.5 herein/widow of the deceased. It is submitted that therefore, a deduction of 50% ought to have been made towards personal expenses. Even the amounts granted under the conventional heads are also on the higher side. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be modified as above.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that it was the clear pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a labourer who was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that even as per the Notification produced by the appellant/Insurance Company, the daily wage of an unskilled labourer is about Rs.205/-; which is approximately Rs.6,323/- per month. Therefore, there is no error in the income of Rs.6,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly, the deceased was married at the time of accident, and the Claim Petition was filed on behalf of his parents wherein his widow was arrayed as pro-forma respondent No.4. It is submitted that in this situation, deduction of 1/3^rd has been correctly made by