272-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Surinder @ Sunil and Another ... Appellants Versus Sonu Panchal and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.3.

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, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 07.12.2018 on account of death of Laxmi Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.04.2017.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 23.04.2017 the deceased was going from Cheeka towards village Tatiana on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-09C-9817. Satpal was riding the motorcycle at a moderate speed and on correct side of the road and Monika was also a pillion rider. When they reached near Kamboj Filling Station, a car bearing registration No.HR-12Y-9547, which was being driven by respondent No.1 herein in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit the motorcycle by coming on the right side of the road. As a result of the accident, all the occupants of the motorcycle fell on the road and received multiple serious injuries. They were taken to CHC Guhla where Monika (minor child) was declared ‘dead’ whereas the deceased and Satpal were referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. However, Satpal succumbed to his injuries on the way while the deceased in the present case died on 25.04.2017. FIR No.69 dated 23.04.2017 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the respondent No.1 at Police Station Cheeka, Kaithal. 3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation holding it to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 40% :

Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Monthly Income ₹9,000/-

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

3 Multiplier - 18 ₹19,44,000/- [₹1,08,000 x 18]

4 Loss of estate ₹15,000/- 5 Funeral expenses ₹15,000/- 6 Loss of consortium ₹40,000/-

Total Compensation ₹20,14,000/ Actual compensation after ₹12,08,400/

deducting 40% towards contributory negligence Interest 9% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal wrongly held it to be a case of contributory negligence in the absence of any issue having been framed. It is further the contention that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company and even the driver of the offending vehicle did not step in the witness-box. Only on the basis of the site plan (Ex.R5) it has been held to be a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has further contended that the site plan (Ex.R5) was not proved in accordance with law and was only tendered by the Insurance Company. Even otherwise, the deceased in the present case was a pillion rider. It is further the contention that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and the Tribunal has assessed her notional income as ₹9,000/- per month which is on the lower side inasmuch as at the relevant point of time the minimum wages for an unskilled worker were also more than the income assessed by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal has not applied a multiplier which, as per age of the deceased who was 23 years of age, ought to have been ‘18’. It is further the contention that the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is also no