239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 Chander Kala & Anr ... Appellant(s)

Versus Krishan Kumar & Anr. ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 18.03.2017 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.11.2015.

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 :

Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Notional annual income ₹15,000/-

2 Multiplier of 15 [₹15,000 x 15] = ₹2,25,000/-

3 Love and affection ₹1,00,000/-

4 Funeral expenses ₹25,000/-

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side inasmuch as the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as ₹15,000/- per annum only and has applied a multiplier of 15. The deceased in the present case was a young boy of 15 years and was a student and had a very bright future ahead, hence, his income ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wage of a skilled worker. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal has also neither applied any deduction nor made any addition towards future prospects. Learned counsel further states that he does not challenge the compensation awarded under the head loss of consortium. He, however, states that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant- appellants 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 respondent No.2-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed. 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.

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

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case the deceased was a young boy of 15 years of age and was a student. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as ₹15,000/- per annum which in the opinion of this Court is erroneous inasmuch as admittedly the deceased was a young boy of 15 years of age and was a student, hence, his income ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wage as applicable to a skilled worker. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. [2025 (1) TAC 730 = 2025 INSC 1244], while relying on Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238], awarded the compensation in the case of a 6 years’ old child who had died in an accident which occurred on 07.03.2014 as per the minimum wages applicable for a skilled worker in the year 2014.

8. In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. [2025 (4)

ACJ (SC) 36 = 2025 INSC 1070] has held as under :

“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant,