IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Amarjit Kaur & ors. ….Appellants Versus Gurcharan Singh & ors. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vinod Pundir, Advocate for Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensa’on of Rs.39,95,424/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereina2er ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 27.11.2018 passed in MACT Case RBT No.46 dated 23.02.2016 filed under Sec’on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereina2er “the Act”). The four claimants are the 38-year- old widow, 17-year-old, 16-year-old and 10-year-old daughters of deceased Ranjit Singh, who was 45 years old at the ’me of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the par’es, concluded that the deceased Ranjit Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registra’on No.PB-10-CY-1791 (hereina2er “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, and owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensa’on has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum; and respondent No.3 was held liable to pay the compensa’on amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa’on by submiDng that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a Home Guard with the Punjab Government. On the basis of evidence led by AW-3 Ajay Kumar, Junior Assistant, office of Punjab Home Guard, Hoshiarpur, learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.972/- per day; and monthly income of Rs.25272/- (Rs.972x26=25272/-). However, in compu’ng the monthly income of the deceased, deduc’on of 4 days has been made on account of 4 Sundays that come in a month. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Asso. Vs. State of H.P. & ors., 2015 AIR (SCW) 2088, wherein it is held that duty allowance should be paid to Home Guard for 30 days in a month. It is submiMed that therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been calculated for 30 days in a month and not 26. Therefore, the dispute is regarding salary for 4 days i.e. approximately Rs.4000/-.

4. Learned counsel further submits that proper compensa’on has not been awarded under the conven’onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa’on payable to the appellants be enhanced as above.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and present appeal be dismissed.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of the par’es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

7. The first conten’on of learned counsel for the appellants is that while compu’ng income of the deceased, salary of the deceased should have been taken for all the 30 days, and four holidays i.e. 4 Sundays could not have been deducted while compu’ng the income. In support, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards (supra). However, in this regard, learned counsel has been unable to make out parity between the facts of the present case and the relied-upon judgment in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Asso.’s case (supra). Further, it is also to be noted that the relied-upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was passed on dated 11.03.2015; i.e. prior to the passing of the impugned Award on dated 27.11.2018. It is very candidly admiMed by learned counsel for the appellants that the said jud