IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurwinder Singh ......Appellant vs.

Mukesh Kumar and ors. ......Respondents Date of Reserve: 16.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 Uploaded on:- 02.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. P.S. Dhindsa, Advocate (Through VC)

for the appellant.

Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate, puts in appearance and filed her vakalatnama for respondent No. 1. The same is taken on record.

As per office report, notice issued to respondent No. 2 has not been received back served or otherwise from Chennai.

This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2018 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, the Court would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Companies, who is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the matters.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he will supply copy of the paper-book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company during the course of the day.

In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of

2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case.

FAO-87-2018 The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

16.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.1,83,358/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Gurwinder Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 17.08.2009. 2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserved to be enhanced. He further contends that the income of the claimant has been assessed on the lower side and that the assessment has been made without due consideration of the potential future earning capacity of the claimant, which, according to the claimant, would have accrued had the accident not occurred. He, thus prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means th