IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 Meena and another .…Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Anshuman Dalal, 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 ₹8,02,600/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 22.09.2014, passed in MACT Petition No. 22 of 2014 dated 25.02.2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 02 claimants are the parents of deceased-Vikas who was 23 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Vikas, 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 referred to as ‘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 income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only ₹4800/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was working as Conductor and was earning ₹15,000/- per month. Yet, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as only ₹4800/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants relies upon the relevant Minimum Wages Notification issued by the State of Haryana applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2013, to submit that as per the said Notification, income of a skilled worker is ₹5601.51 (rounded off to ₹5600/-). It is, therefore, submitted that monthly income of the deceased deserves to be enhanced. It is further submitted that under the conventional heads the learned Tribunal has awarded only ₹25,000/- towards funeral expenses; and nothing has been awarded by way of consortium, loss of estate; and the rate of interest should also be granted on the higher side. It is accordingly, prayed that the present appeal may be accepted and the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants deserves to be enhanced.

4. 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.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail. I find some merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

7. Perusal of the record shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant-claimants that prior to the accident in question, deceased- Vikas was working as conductor and was earning ₹15,000/- per month. No doubt, no definite documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased; and only oral statement had been made by claimant No. 1/mother of the deceased as PW-5 qua the alleged income of the deceased. However, the claimants have produced copy of conductor’s licence Ex.P-18. It is my view that therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at least as an skilled worker as per the relevant Minimum Wages Notification, as applicable w.e.f.