IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :27.01.2026 PIARO (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Mohit Rana, Advocate (through V.C.)

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being wife, son and daughter of the deceased-Narota Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.11.1999, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. DL-1PA/2976.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned award 24.01.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which the appellants-claimants were found entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-, the appellants-claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same is not accordance with their entitlement.

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 present case had awarded the following compensation:

Income of deceased Rs.1,500/- per month Deduction 1/3^rd Rs. 1,000/-

(1,500-500)

Multiplier 12 Total loss of Income & awarded Rs. 1,44,000/-

compensation (1,000x12 x 12)

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

• Income of deceased was not correctly taken. That the income of the deceased taken by learned Tribunal is on the lower side. That deceased was 47 years of age at the time of accident working as labour Contractor in D.C.M factory at Asron and his monthly income was Rs. 6,000/-. Ld. Tribunal has erred by deducting allowances of Rs.500/- from salary for determining loss of dependency.

• Future prospects were not added while determining loss of dependency.

Future prospects to the extent 25% of monthly income needs to be added as the deceased was 47 years of age at the time of accident.

• Multiplier applied by learned Tribunal is ‘12’ whereas, keeping in view the age of deceased the multiplier of ‘13’ ought to have been granted.

• Appropriate compensation amount needs to be granted under the head 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 respondent No.2 has argued that sufficient amount has already been given as compensation in the present case and there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. PW2-wife of deceased stated that deceased was working as a laborer in D.M.C factory at Asron and his earning was Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. In order to prove income of deceased appellants/claimants have only relied upon oral assertions. No corroborative material was placed on record to show that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.

8. On consideration, I find that monthly income for determining dependency has been wrongly taken by the learned Tribunal and needs to be enhanced. Income of deceased ought to have been taken Rs. 1,749/-as per the minimum wages payable to unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident. Loss of dependency has been rightly assessed as 1/3^rd since deceased was survived by three dependents namely wife, son and daughter of the deceased.

9. Keeping in view the age of deceased, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is warranted and multiplier of ‘13’ ought to be applied as deceased was 47 years old. Appellants-claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,500/- towards loss of esta