IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

XOBJC-56-CII-2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Vs.

Pooja Devi and others ....Respondents Reserved on : 20.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:23.02.2026 Uploaded on : 24.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company (in FAO No. 3408-2016).

Mr. Pratham Bali, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 and for cross-objector (in X Objection No. 56-CII-2017)

-.-

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-3408-2016 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant/insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation at the first instance to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.25,29,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum with liberty to recover the same from respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

XOBJC-56-CII-2017

2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross- objectors/claimants (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) against the award dated 11.04.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the cross-objectors/claimants to the tune of Rs.25,29,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Rishi Pal (deceased).

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross- objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors are arising out of the same award dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO- 3408-2016 and XOBJC-56-CII-2017 are decided vide this common judgment.

4. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal and cross objection is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be re-

produced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 12000/- i.e on the higher side. He further contends that learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded 50% towards future prospects instead of 40% as per settled law since, the deceased was not a permanent employee. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be reduced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/cross- objectors/claimants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present cross-objections be allowed and present appeal be dismissed and amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121] laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,