247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 Saroj and Others ... Appellants Versus Sikander Singh and Another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

Service of respondent No.1 dispensed with vide order dated 12.09.2019.

Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

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, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 04.01.2018 on account of death of Hari Ram @ Raj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.05.2016.

2. As per report of the Mediator, the mediation was a non-starter.

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

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

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹12,000/-

2 Annual Income ₹1,44,000/- [₹12,000 x 12]

3 Deduction - 1/4th ₹1,08,000/- [₹1,44,000 - ₹36,000] 4 Future Prospects - 40% ^{₹1,51,200/-} [₹1,08,000 + ₹43,200]

5 Multiplier - 15 ₹22,68,000/- [₹1,51,200 x 15]

6 Loss of estate ₹15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- 8 Loss of consortium ₹40,000/-

Total Compensation ₹23,38,000/

Interest 9% per annum

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the deduction, multiplier and the future prospects as applied by the Tribunal. However, he has contended that the deceased in the present case was admittedly the driver and owner of the truck bearing registration No.RJ-31G-4300, which was a heavy transport vehicle. It is further the contention that Ex.PW-1/H, which is the registration certificate of the truck, reveals that the deceased was owner of the truck. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has further contended that income of the deceased has been assessed as ₹12,000/- per month. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila & Ors. vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors. [2023 ACJ 2028] where the accident had taken place in 2012 and the deceased therein was the driver of a heavy duty vehicle, had assessed his income as ₹20,000/- per month. It has further been contended that the deceased has left behind four minor children of age 09 years, 08 years, 04 years and 1½ years at the time of accident, widow and the mother. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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]

6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has contended that in the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as that of a driver and therefore the same does not call for any modification. It is further the contention that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case it has come on the record that the deceased was owner and driver of the truck as per registration certificate (Ex.PW-1/H). The truck was badly damaged in the accident. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila (supra) where the deceased, who was engaged as a driver to drive a 18 wheels truck-trolley had met with an accident in 2012, assessed the income as ₹20,000/- per month keeping in view the fact that he used to drive a heavy-duty