224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Vijay & Ors ... Appellant(s)

Versus Umesh Chander & Ors ... Respondent(s)

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

Mr. J.S. Khiva, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Mayank 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, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 06.08.2009 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 19.02.2006.

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 Monthly Income ₹6,000/-

2 Deduction - 1/3^rd ₹4,000/- [₹6,000 - ₹2,000]

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge the income and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that in the present case there are four claimants being widow and three children of the deceased and, hence, a deduction of 1/4^th ought to have been applied instead of 1/3^rd. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 25% inasmuch as the deceased was 44 years of age at the time of the accident. 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, 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 the respondents have 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 Insurance Company or by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant- appellants to the income and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.

8. In the present case the number of claimants is four being widow and three children of the deceased, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/4^th would be applicable instead of 1/3^rd. The Tribunal has also not made any addition towards future prospects. The deceased was admittedly 44 years of age, hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% addition is made towards future prospects. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), hence, the claimants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,0