IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:26.02.2026 Savita and another .…Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ritik Mohindra, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation of ₹9,63,400/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 22.09.2014, passed in MACT Petition No. 237 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013 file under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 03 claimants are the: i) 24-year-old widow; ii) minor daughter; and iii) 48- year-old father of deceased-Vijay Kumar who was 26 years old at the time of accident. The present appeal has been filed only by claimants No. 1 and 2/widow and minor child, respectively; whereas claimant No. 3/ father of the deceased is impleaded as respondent No. 3 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Vijay Kumar, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.09.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration No. HR-16-L-2104 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) owned and driven by respondent No.1-Ramesh Kumar; and insured by respondent No. 2-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded the above compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as only ₹4600/- per month. It is submitted that the claimants had duly proven on record that prior to the accident in question, deceased was working as Mason and earning ₹20,000/- per month. Yet the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as only ₹4600/- per month which is on the lower side. It is submitted that even as per the relevant Minimum Wages Notification issued by the State of Haryana, the Minimum Wage payable to an unskilled worker w.e.f. 01.07.2013 is ₹5341.51. Copy of the said Notification handed over in Court by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. It is, therefore, submitted that monthly income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced.

4. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing by way of consortium, transportation or loss of estate. It is accordingly, prayed that the present appeal may be accepted and the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants deserves to be enhanced.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that in actual fact compensation in excess has already been awarded to the appellant-claimants, as the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 50% towards future prospects. However, as per law the same should be 40%. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail.

7. Perusal of the record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant-claimants that prior to the accident in question, deceased- Vijay Kumar was an agriculturist; and was also a skilled Mason; and was doing labour work and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. No doubt, no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. However, claimant No. 1/widow had appeared as PW-3 and had also examined PW-4 Puran, who have both deposed that deceased was a skilled Mason and was doing labou