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

Versus Mandeep @ Monu & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rakesh, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

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, Jind (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 25.07.2011 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on

20.07.2010.

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 :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Annual income after applying ₹74,268/- [₹6,189/- x 12]

1/3^rd deduction

2 Loss of 70% of the salary for the ₹10,21,185/- [₹74,268 x 13¾ ]

remaining 13¾ years

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though he does not challenge the deduction and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side inasmuch as the Tribunal has wrongly deducted all the allowances including family pension from the gross salary of the deceased. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 30% inasmuch as the deceased was 44 years of age at the time of the accident and was a permanent employee. It is further the contention of the learned counsel 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 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 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.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that though the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded ₹6,04,800/- under the head gratuitous services of the deceased towards the claimant-appellants which is unknown to the law. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that there is no scope of any enhancement in the present case.

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, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.

8. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant- appellants as regards assessing of income by deducting allowances including family pension from the gross salary of the deceased, is concerned, the same deserves to be accepted. In the present case, in order to prove the employment and salary of the deceased, the claimant-appellants have examined Vinod Kumar, Establishment Clerk from Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Rohtak as PW4 who deposed that the deceased was working as a Cane Development Supervisor in their Mill and was drawing a salary of ₹16,878/- per month at the time of his death. This witness proved on record the