IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (212)

FAO-4118-2024 Date of decision:- 27.02.2026 Sunita and others ...Appellants Versus Deepak Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Ms. Anjali, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Widow, five daughters, one son and mother of the deceased- Jaipal, who died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 07.09.2022, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, vide award dated 03.05.2024 had awarded the compensation of Rs.28,60,458/- along with interest to the claimants/appellants. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the present appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation, as other aspects have not been disputed before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, there are eight claimants but on account of loss of consortium only an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded. It is further submitted that since the accident had taken place on 07.09.2022, thus, as per settled principle of law, each of the claimants were entitled to Rs.44,000/- on account of loss of consortium and thus, an amount of Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.44,000 x 7 + Rs.4,000) is to be awarded to the appellants on the said account. It is further argued that even on accounts of loss of estate and funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- each, has been awarded, whereas, the amount which should have been awarded, after taking into consideration 10% increase should have been Rs.33,000/-. It is thus argued that the present appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- as additional compensation and has prayed that interest @ 9% per annum be given on the said enhanced amount. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the daily wages fixed by the DC, Mohindergarh to assess the income of the deceased, whereas, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the minimum wages as per the relevant notification. It is further submitted that even the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and at best the interest that can be awarded on the additional compensation should be 6% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, in rebuttal, has submitted that although the award was passed on 03.05.2024, yet no appeal/cross- appeal has been filed by the insurance company and thus, the reduction sought on account of assessed monthly income by the counsel for respondent no.3 is not permissible.

5. This Court has considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties and has gone through the paper-book and is of the opinion that the pleas raised on behalf of the appellants are meritorious and deserves to be approved.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra), has held as under:-

“59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point