IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 Surinder Kaur .…Appellant Versus Daljinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Insurance Co.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount of ₹1,58,400/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 04.03.2009, passed in petition bearing M.A.C. Case No. 106 of 2008 dated 20.09.2008, filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The sole claimant is the 45-year-old mother of deceased-

Sardool Singh, who was 22 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased-Sardool Singh, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 30.10.2007 while driving motorcycle bearing Registration No. PB-63-B-0748; owned by respondent No. 1-Daljinder Singh; and insured by respondent No. 2- Insurance Company. Upon appraisal of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, the learned Tribunal had concluded that Sardool Singh, deceased, died as a result of use of motorcycle No. PB-63-B-0748 in this motor vehicular accident. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. Both the respondents were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has taken on the lower side as ₹2400/- per month; whereas as per the relevant Minimum Wages Notification, the same should have been assessed as ₹5000/- per month. It is further submitted that deceased was 22 years old at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 20 ought to have been applied. But the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11. Moreover, nothing has been granted towards future prospects; even nothing has been granted towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed; and the Award dated 04.03.2009 be modified and the amount of compensation be enhanced from ₹1,58,400/-

to ₹15,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant- claimant and points out that deceased was the borrower of the motorcycle in question. It is submitted that no finding has been given by the learned Tribunal as to whether the deceased possessed a valid driving licence and was authorized to drive the offending motorcycle at the time of accident.

5. Learned counsel further points out that it is the case of the appellant that an un-identified tractor trolley came from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and struck against the motorcycle in question which was being driven by deceased-Sardool Singh, as a result of which Sardool Singh and pillion rider-Sukhdev Singh fell on the ground and received serious injuries to which Sardool Singh succumbed at the spot. It is pointed out that qua the said accident even though FIR No. 160 dated 31.10.2007 under Sections 304-A, 337, 279, 427 IPC at Police Station Chheharta, was registered. However, no claim petition was filed by the claimant against the driver and owner of the said tractor trolley. It is contended that the claim petition against the respondents herein is not maintainable. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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