222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19.02.2026 Rani and Others ... Appellants Versus Sunil Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Utkarsh Khatana, Advocate Amicus Curie for the appellants.

Mr. Harnanak Singh, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 18.03.2011 on account of death of Sachin in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 01.01.2010.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the deduction as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹3,600/- per month inasmuch as the minimum wage applicable for an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was ₹4,214/- per month. It is further the contention that the deceased in the present case was 26 years of age however the Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased, has applied a multiplier of ‘9’ which ought to have been ‘17’. It has further been contended that no addition has been made towards loss of future prospects which ought to have been 40% inasmuch as the deceased was 26 years of age at the time of the accident. It is further the contention that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that no amount has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree &

Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4)

RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the respondents. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction as applied by the Tribunal, the same is maintained accordingly.

8. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹3,600/- per month which in the opinion of this Court is on the lower side inasmuch as the minimum wage applicable for an unskilled worker at the time of the accident was ₹4,214/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹4,214/- per month. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of ‘9’ keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased. The deceased in the present case was 26 years of age, hence as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of ‘17’ would be applicable. Further, the Tribunal has not made any addition towards future prospects. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, an addition of 40% ought to