288 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC-21-2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant(s)

Versus Parkash Chand & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Amit Kundra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present order shall dispose off the appeal being FAO-3052- 2020 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and the cross-objections being XOBJC-21-2021 filed by the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide the impugned award dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.05.2019.

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 ₹9,000/-

2 Annual Income ₹1,08,000/- [₹9,000 x 12]

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the age of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as 50 years as the Aadhaar Card, which was tendered in evidence by the appellant-Insurance Company as Ex.R1, shows the age of the deceased as 52 years, hence, a multiplier of 11 would be applicable.

5. Per contra the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3/cross-objectors would contend that the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 50 years as per the Post-mortem Report. Learned counsel would further contend that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and that her income ought to have been assessed as ₹10,998/- per month which was the minimum wage for a skilled worker at the time of the accident. Learned counsel has further contended that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 25%. The counsel has fairly conceded that in case the future prospects are awarded, a deduction of 1/3^rd would have to be made towards personal expenses as there are three claimants in the present case being husband and two children of the deceased. It is further the contention that no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and 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 claimants 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]; N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] and Kirti & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(1) RCR (Civil) 478]

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

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the age of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as 50 years as per the post-mortem report and it ought to have been 52 years as per her Aadhaar Card, deserves to be rejected. In the present case, though a copy of the Aadhaar Card of the deceased has been tendered in evidence by the appellant-Insurance Company as Ex.R1, however, the same was not proved in accordance with law nor were the claimants confronted with the said Aadhaar Card. In the absence of any other evidence, the age of the deceased has rightly been assessed as 50 years as per the Post-mortem Report, hence, no fault can be found with the same.

8